Talk:Singh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Hinduism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sikhism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Anthroponymy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anthroponymy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

-Ladoo

Clarification[edit]

I have attempted a clarification of the use of Singh and of Sikh naming traditions. -David91 18:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to pesinsight.com because it is a site dealing with The Pro Evolution Soccer & Winning Eleven and nothing to do with Sikhism. -David91 11:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Disambuguation page needed[edit]

I was looking for Harbhajan Singh, the indian cricketer. I feel, that an ambiguation page should be in this place, explaining Singh as a last name in general along with many personlities by the name of Singh.

Sikh percentages[edit]

What percentages of Singhs are Sikhs? And less importantly, what percentage of Sikhs are Singhs? Kent Wang 22:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

about 61% of singhs are sikhs, and 100% of sikhs are singhs, sometimes a sikh's first name is too long and the middle name "singh" is dropped to make it more easy to write, otherwise all sikhs should have a singh in there name, singh was made to make all sikh people equal, doesn't matter if u are a member of the khalsa or not. Ravinder Singh

That would be completely incorrect to say that 61% of Singhs are Sikh when you take into account that Singh is used by Rajputs, Gurkhas, Dogras, Biharis, Gujjars, Jats of Haryana and Uttarpradesh. Furthermore, Singh is used in Nepal, Burman, Bhutan and all the North Eastern States. Then you have to take into account the West Indian populations and the Fijian and Mauritius populations. Just looking at Rajasthan, Haryana and Gujurat alone, Hindus outnumber the Sikhs in terms of the use Singh, when looking at India's population as a whole Sikhs comprise only 1.9% so we'll round that off to 2%, even then, there is no way you can say comfortably that 61% of Singhs are Sikh, that is a huge misconception, if that is what it is. Easily, Singhs across India and the world are in majority non-Sikhs, its just that Sikhs tend to make themselves more visible and try to promote themselves more than other groups bother to do. Cheers, Dr. Sumerendra Singh Chauhan

Gorkhali (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Where's VJ?[edit]

Why isn't Vijay Singh mentioned? --Damian Yerrick () 02:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Origin and spread of Singh[edit]

Well according to this site the surname Singh originated among Rajputs and then spread to other communities like Sikhs and Jats:

Indian Military History

Guru Govind had made the surname Singh universal among the Khalsa and, as described above, this surname had been common among the Rajputs until then. The word translates to lion and the original Sanskrit pronunciation is Simha---over a period of time evolving into Sih, Sinh, Sinha, and Singh in different parts of India. Warrior clans commonly had a clan name, which would pass for a surname, but Indian rulers rarely used that name as an adjunct to their birth name. Instead common surnames among these ruling families were Chand (moon), Varman (armor), Dev (Godlike), Sena (army), Pal (protector), etc.---all related to the desired kingly qualities. Naturally Simha (lion) was also prominent in this list.

However the most important family to make Simha a hereditary surname was the Sesodia of Mewar. A long list of names from Hammir Singh through Sangram Singh and down to Pratap Singh in the 16th Century echoed across North India---where this Rajput family and its kingdom were the leading power for almost a century before the Mughal Empire. Other Rajput families in this same period began using the surname Singh by imitation until it became a fashion across Rajputana and most of North India.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarkar2 (talkcontribs) 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

According to Sikhs Historian Dr. Gopal Singh and J.D. Cinningham as well as Sikh Royal sites all state the appelation of the name Singh is originally Rajput and used by the Sikhs only after 1699, its a matter of historical fact and should be considered by those who lack knowledge of Indian history. Furthermore, the Bachitra Natak authored by Guru Govind Singh clearly states his praise for the Rajputs and their defiance of Islamic invaders. I would suggest that before people think of Singh as exclusively a Sikh creation, they should read further into Indian history that the name Singh was used in India long before the use among Sikhs after the creation of the Khalsa panth in 1699.

Gorkhali 00:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

=="Distinction"==[edit]

This sections says that "All Sikhs are Singh" which is not true. I can give an example of the top of my head Daler Mehndi, Indo-Canadian singer of Bhangra. There are 23 millions Sihks in the world and not all of them have Singhs in their name. GizzaChat © 04:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

All Sikhs Are Singh.The tenth master , Guru Gobind Singh, made it mandatory for all sikhs to put Singh after their names. Daler Mehndi is the name used by the singer in entertainment life only or as an Alias. You can check , if you have a chance to meet him, and he would be using singh in his name. Perhaps as his middle name.Singh would be there in his passport.Those people who call themselves sikhs and don't use Singh, are not abiding by the rules laid down by Guru Gobind Singh, hence they are not pure sikhs, whatever they like to think about themselves.Ajjay (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Headline text[edit]

Important Correction —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rajputana (talkcontribs) 03:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Ok I hope I am doing this right - first time you see.

Now this article about the surname Singh is largely misleading. Its contents in themselves are not wrong but it is like the story of the blind men describing an elephant after feeling only one part of it.

The use of Singh is far more widespread than this entry suggests.

ALL Rajputs (the Indian aristocractic caste) use it (albeit with some variations in some regions) and the name is the marker of one belonging to the caste of Rajputs. Many Indian Kings have had that name.

This is the primary use and I suspect origin of the surname - certainly that is the accepted postion in Indian society, so that eg a priest would not use it. Not even accidentally.

Yes it is the common surname for all Sikhs but my understanding is that it cannot be used by one who is not (as it were) "baptised" into the faith. given that Sikhs largely share the military traditions and attitudes of Raputs this is not an uncomfortable fit.

This is not to suggest that people these days have adopted ways to overcome the confusion caused by having too many Singhs about.

I trust someone in due course will have the time and the patience to correct this contribution.Rajputana 04:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Why do people keep editing the part where Singh was originally a Rajput surname and is still commonly used by Hindus?? Everytime I add that in, the entry changes and says "Singh is mainly used by Sikhs"! There are million of Hindus that use the last name Singh! Why are Hindu Singhs and Rajputs being neglected in this entry, while there is so much information on Sikhs? Why is there also a khanda sign on the top of the page, as if it's giving the impression that Singh is only a Sikh concept? It also says that Singh is written as Sinh in Hindi. I don't think that's right. Hindi-speaking people write their name as "Singh."


-Ladoo (first time doing this not sure)

Pronunciation[edit]

There's a bit in the article I noticed:

"For example, in Hindi (Devnagari script), the name is written as िंसह (Sinh) and pronounced as िंसघ (Singh)."

That's great, but how is that pronounced? And we might need phonetic (IPA) notation.

-Misha

216.254.12.114 11:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


I think some authors must be confused. The article now says, " िंसह (Singh) and pronounced as सिघ (Singh)". So some people are taking the "(Singh)" to be the written form, while it was originally intended as the pronunciation. And what happened to the anusvara on "सिंघ"? I put it back, but the English spellings are still weird.

As far as IPA, are there not variations in pronunciation? I've heard several ways: /sɪŋ/ (bastardized English?), /sɪ̃hə̆/ ("correct" given phonetic Devanagari?), or /sɪ̃ɡʰ/ (prevalent?). Can someone please clarify which pronunciations are used in which settings? Then include this IPA in the article?

EDIT: and does anyone know how to get the IPA diacritics to combine with the preceding vowel? In my browser, they "ɪ̃" appears combined in the text editor but separate when displayed on the final page.

Pediddle (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


I am pleased someone with common sense has cleaned up this entry as well as the one on Brahmins.

Although the entry on Singh is still well short of an adequate description of the use of this surname it corrected the previously ludicrous entry that suggested the name was a preserve of Sikhs.

I still take issue with the first paragraph of this entry which appears to suggest that this surname is used by other Varnas. In my experience the surname is the reserve of Rajputs and Sikhs. Perhaps the author ought to explain the basis for the suggestion (and demonstrate by way of example).

On a lighter note, lovely reference to the Singh Pirates, the current leader of which (Sandal Singh) appears to be a well fit Rajput maiden as this link would demonstrate [1]. How does one insert pics?


--Rajputana 06:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Pediddle (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Efforts to hijack Singh article[edit]

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

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

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

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

Reported here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atulsnischal (talkcontribs) 17:21, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Atulsnischal 06:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Harrybabbar is requested not to continuously VADALIZE the "Singh" article[edit]

  • Dear User:Harrybabbar

This is a request to you to Kindly do not VANDALIZE wikipedia article "Singh". You are most welcome to leave your comments on the Discussion page of the article. At the top of the article, please click on discussion to reach talk page for the article and leave your comments there.

By the way I have had some friends with the name "babbar", babbar are "Mair Rajputs", many Rajput families that have been living in Punjab have been baptizing their first born son as a khalsa traditionally to join the guru's army of protectors against invaders.

You could find out more about Mair Rajputs here in case you are interested:

http://mairrajputs.tripod.com/

http://mairrajputs.tripod.com/gothras.html

http://mairrajputs.tripod.com/notable.html#babbar


Best wishes

Thanks

Atulsnischal (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

hi[edit]

Sure Nischal,

I know orgins of my ancestors and ours is a Rajput and Jatt family...thats is the reason i have stated the facts in my article....I am not afraid of telling the truth.

How can you guys write in hindi script as Sinh and say that it is prononced as Singh...thats the most stupid thing to say

harry babbar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybabbar (talkcontribs) 14:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Harry,

And claiming that 50% of the British Army was Sikh is intelligent? Furthermore you obviously don't have a clue on linguistics and how it has been pronounced in the Punjab, Kashmir, Harayana, and Himachal before it was ever adopted by the Sikhs. In Nepal it was always pronounced Singh.

You also made your Bollywood claim? Are you honestly for real? Most movies from India, where the guy has the name Singh, he is usually a Rajput.

You are not telling the truth, you are stating POVs, purposely changing sentences that have been footnoted with references which is vandalism. You make outrageuos claims. And you claim that only a few Rajputs used the name when all the Sikh historians state that it has been used by Rajputs until 1699 adopted by Sikhs. The Mughal archives are the best source for this argeument since all the Singhs in their records are only Rajputs.

All the Sikh Phulkian States claim Rajput ancestry, even though they are Jat Sikhs. That is a fact stated in all history books and even on the website for the records of the Dutch East India Company.

Harry, if you were part Rajput it would show in your arguement, but it seems you have ana agenda to hijack and misrepresent this article.

Sorry about putting it on your page Atulji.

Gorkhali (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

About pronunciation and writing of Asiatic lion / Singh in Hindi[edit]

It is pronounced and written in Hindi as: "Sa" with a small "Ee" ki Matra before it, with a point on top suggesting half "Na" and then full "Ha.

As in English you cant write the exact word, after English came they wrote the word as "Singh", but Gujaratis in Gujarat write and pronounce it completely different, its a different language. They write it and pronounce it close to "Sinnh", their Sinh means Asiatic Lion too but is not spelled as or written the same as Hindi.

There is also a surname in Mair Rajputs which is Shinh, that is Asiatic Lion too, again it is different word but this is not a middle name, it is the actual surname / family name from Mair Rajputs.

Hope that helps

Atulsnischal (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Very true Atulji, but in Uttar Pradesh, Uttar Anchal, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab Hills, Harayana, Himachal, Kashmir, Nepal and the North Eastern Provinces it is pronounced Singh. The point is that Harry is making some wild claims and when he put his Bollywood claim in there, that just killed it. Also his claiming that Singh became famous because 50% of the British Army was Sikh is pretty wild when you see the docmentation and references such as "A Matter of Honour" By Phili Mason and "Armies of the Raj" by Byron Farwell, both about the British Indian Army, clearly sate which groups the British recruited from and that would be not only the Sikhs but also Rajputs, Gurkhas, Garhwalis, Jats, Dogras and many others who also have the name Singh before the adoption in 1699, then also we should not forget all the Muslim martial groups that were also enlisted (although they did not use the name Singh Obviously). However his claims are out of proportion and he purposely changed sentences which were footnoted thus misleading the reader with POVS and falsifications.

Gorkhali (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

answer to Gurkhaboy[edit]

Sorry Nischol for using ur page to answere Gurkhaboy....dear gurkha boy i dont need anyone to talk about my bloodline alright and surely not from Gurkha .....(why dont we post our photographs or better meet up and see who truly has a refined bloodline)

If you claims about Rajput using the Singh was true why was it that the most brave and legendery Rajputs never used it ie Maharana Pratap and Prithiv Raj Chauhan...it was only the most most shrewdest of them and ally of Muslims Raja Maan Sinh used it alright...the fact is that suddenly in last 50 odd years you have spurt in usage of name Singh from all over India be yadavs, biharis, Haryanvi Jaats and even nepalis (can you beat that) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybabbar (talkcontribs) 05:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So now you are physically threatening me Harrybabbar?

Gorkhali (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And even after you threatened me physically you provided no eveidence or references to back up your claims. Bravo.

Gorkhali (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

re[edit]

gurkhaboy...you seem to missing the point all along...its about Sinh for hindus and Singh for Sikhs...get that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybabbar (talkcontribs) 06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


You seem to not understand that all your claims are outrageous and furthermore you have no evidence to back your claims. You are trying to deny the history of various groups of people of an entire subcontinent to push forward you POV. Never do you cite references, you only make claims. And its amazing, you just don't get it. You really don't get the fact that Singh is a name used first by the Rajputs and then adopted by a whole slew of groups across the subcontinent. I guess in your view Singapore (Singa-pur) is a city created by Sikhs right? I guess when in Thailand they use the word Singha for Lion and is also the name of a famous brewery of thailand it must have been started by the Sikhs??? Right???

You claim the Maharana Pratap did not use the name Singh? Guess again, you can read the three volume collection of the Annals and Anitquities of Rajasthan by Colonel James Todd and see all the Rajput kings and heroes with the name Singh, including Maharana Sangram Singh who fought Babur. Furthermore, History of the Sikhs by Dr. Gopal Singh (a Sikh Historian and a Sikh) and Joseph Davey Cunnigham bought state in their books that Singh (not Sinh) was a name used by the Rajputs before the Sikh adoption. Also, all the Rajput hill Kings of the Shivalik ranges of Punjab used SINGH and this is recorded by the the historians of the time of Guru Hargobind.

The Mughal Chronicles all state the Rajputs as Singhs, and according to history the Mughals had defeated the Sikhs. It wasn't until the disintegration of the Mughal empire by other groups that the Sikhs gain prominence with Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

About Nepal, Rajputs entered Nepal around the 16th century and with them the name Singh, it is not pronounced Sinh or anything of the sort and Nepal is very specific about Sanskrit pronunciation, but instead the Singh was used, for example Wazir Kunwar Bal Nar Singh.

Manipur a far off eastern state along with Assam, Tripura all have the pronunciation of Singh and this in no way was from the impact of Sikhs.

The British no doubt recrutied many Sikhs (but 50% of their army, get real), but they heavily recruited from the Rajputs and especially from the Gurkhas, as well as Garhwal, Dogra, Bhil, Mahar, Assam and the list can go on. And you seem to forget that the Punjab Regiments were mainly brave Muslim Jats and other martial groups from the muslim community made up the vast majority of the Punjab regiment. You seem to forget that during the British, the Rajputs we given the utmost respect and to the point where the Prince of Wales would be tutored in Gatika by the Maharaja of Jaisalmer (according to Philip Mason and Byron Farwell), as well as giving the only seat to a non-white on the WW1 war cabinet was Maharaja Ganga Singh of Bikaner, a Rajput. To this day they recruit Gurkhas and this relationship was afr stronger than the one with the Sikhs.

The Phulkian States of the Sikh Nobility all claim Rajput descendency from Jaisalmer and thus legitamise their claim to the Singh through a Rajput bloodline. You can look this up on the Royal Ark online. They claim to be Singh before the adoption of the name in 1699.

You really don't get it. You just don't and still you want to push a POV and vandalise instead of learning something you may not have been aware of.

And you physically threaten me to top it off. Way to go.

Gorkhali (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Real Singhs Answers Gurkaboy[edit]

Gurkhaboy here is the answer to your tall claims, few Rajputs used the name as Sinh becoz that’s how you write it in Hindi, after 19th century it more of became a fashion after Sikhs glorified the name Singh, it’s the same way as with the Surname Khan in Muslims like now a days every second Muslim you find in India will put Khan behind his name even if he is not a Pathan (and claims to be Pathan).

There might be some truth in Thai brewery that you talked about, because Sikhs have been in Thailand for more then 200 years now and play a vital role in Thai economy, Sukhumvit area in Bangkok is prime area because of there development Mr. Gurkha, so who knows maybe Thai got impressed by the name.

Dear Gurkha most of the Rajput Kings never used Singh as name even if it was used by few it was as Sinh, you talked about Shivalik Hills and other parts the name was Obiviosly pronounced as Singh because all this region were part of greater Punjab till 1960 (maybe you need to refresh your history). Why don’t just explain why it’s written as सिंह (Sinh) in Hindi, when it could have been written as सिंघ (Singh)

And now since you have started topic about Sikh gaining prominence after disintegration of Mughals by other groups (I do not understand the reason why you started this topic…maybe as an intention to insult Sikhs…..please specify the groups that disintegrated Mughals since Sikhs as you say were not involved…oh or maybe by gurkhas did it right)……. My dear gurkhaboy the fact it was the constant efforts and never say die spirit of Sikhs that they were able to form Sikh Empire in Northern India…also they took so much of Pakhtun Teritory till Khyber Pass (Tell me which community in India Till date has been able to do that) it is an acheivment which surpassed all the standards set by any martial community in India. Iam not her to downgrade Rajputs but the fact is that they were never able to defeat Muslim Invaders (they were able to resist them in few places, but lost the major kingdoms to Mughals) and majority of Rajput Kings had befriended and married there daughters to Mughals…of course few exceptions being Maharana Pratap & Prithvi Raj Chauhan (that’s the reasons lots of also Rajputs became Sikhs in 16th Century).

Please why don’t you give me a little background as to how and when Rajputs in 16th Century entered Nepal and are sure this were the real Rajputs or maybe those C grade ones from Bihar, Bengal and Awadh area (not even sure if they were real Sinhs or just pretending to be one). And did you guys give your women to them to start a new breed of Sinh Gurkhas…….. (Or what). It was mainly adopted or copied by Nepalies Royalty from India or was bestowed upon them by British for supporting them in suppressing Sepoy Mutiny (1857) in Lucknow and Gorakhpur area.

And Iam sure in Nepal, Manipur the Singh name was just taken or copied from India, similarly like Khan by many of the non Pathan Muslims (Surely you will have Nepali Muslims with Khan surname buddy or maybe you can give me a background as to when Pathan entered Nepal)….As you rightly said there was large presence of Gurkhas in British Army (also agreed till date) your gurkha brothers copied that name when they saw the fellow Sikhs army men during British time (Here again let me clarify Iam not doubting about valour and martial standards of Gurkhas it just issue of name).

Know lets talk about British army, for your information the 1857 revolt (the sepoy mutiny) was suppressed by British mainly with the help of Sikh & Pakhtun Soldier, and do you know why Sikh sided with British because revolting soldiers had proclaimed Bhadhur Shah Zafar as Indias king, a Mulim ruler was totally unacceptable to Sikhs, so they saved India from another Islamic rule (that’s the true Singh blood).

And I have never disputed the fact that British army didn’t have other ethnic India groups tell me which statement of mine says that and surely if I said 50% of British army was Sikhs does that mean rest 50% cant be Pakhtuns, Jats, Rajputs, Gurkhas etc (So why are getting so excited about the same & how does this statement discredit other martial groups).

Like Rajput King Ganga Singh even other Kings of Princely States of India and Nepal were given Utmost respect in some way or the other (if not WWI seat)….but keep in my mind my Gurkha friend that this were the Princely States who used to lick British Asses and were Puppet Kings.

And to your favorit topic of British still maintaining Gurkhas Regiment till date, obviously brother if not Gurkhas then who else…. Rest of the former regiment Sikhs, Pakhtuns and other are too independent and self respecting (And British knew they cannot control them) and are also pretty well to do communities know a days…they are not ready work for peanuts (where one is not sure even if he will get pension benefits). And Britisher realized it long back that Sikhs are too independent and self respecting and they will give it back to them when time comes eg. Jallianwala Bagh massacre was answered by killing of Michael O’Dwyer and 90% of the people hanged by British during freedom struggle were Sikhs…(I hope that answers your question). Offcourse Gurkhas are Cheap, Loyal, and Brave and ready to work for peanuts and are not an enterprising community.

Phukian States claim might be true as lots Rajputs had became Sikhs in 16th Century and and this were Punjabi Rajputs and they rightly had the name Singh not Sinh.

And when did I Physical threaten you, I just mentioned that we post our pictures so that we know what a true Singh looks like or just meet up to discuss the issues on a Cup of coffee (come on you are a Gukha, you guys are supposed to be brave)

And Dear the whole issue of this topic above is not to degraded anybody its just to tell truth and stop the abuse of Singh name which is being used by every Tom, Dick and Harry…I mean just look around now days you have people with Singh name who’s Fathers & forefathers never used Singh in there name.

And Dear Gurkhaboy it was a good strategy to involve your fellow Gurkha (Khukri) to get me blocked from making comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybabbar (talkcontribs) 12:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


Still blowing hot air with POVs and not giving any evidence.

Gorkhali (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the article until consensus is achieved here. I have warned and blocked editors though I am loath to do so again. There will be no more edit warring until this issue is resolved here, and only then may you make your changes in this regard. So gentlemen I suggest you start discussing in ernest instead of carrying out your feud on the article itself. And Harrybabbar please do not make any assupmtions as to my nationality, as in this you are spectacularly wrong and I hope this is not indicative of your reasoning behind your edits. Khukri 07:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Harry,

There is little use in subjecting Gorkhali to all that invective when (if you are descended from Rajputs as you claim) you MUST know that Singh is primarily a Rajput name. HAve a look at the recent members of the cricket team. Or go to the real Singh sport - hockey - it is redolent with Singhs of both Rajput and Sikh origins.

Grokhali is simply as incredulous as I was earlier that this entry wrongly (and rather vigorously) asserts that it is primarily Sikh. Common matey, we both know you are not being honest. So do millions of other Indians.

You are right about one thing though. This debate has been unedifying and does nothing for Rajput and Sikh dignity.


Rajputana (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rajpuana,

Agreed that its of Rajput orgin but the word used by Rajput was सिंह (Sinh) and not सिंघ (Singh), Singh as it is today was used by Sikhs first and later was adopted by other communities. Present cricket team as far as i know has Yuvraj Singh (Sikh from Punjab), Harbhjan Singh (Sikh from punjab), VRV Singh (Sikh from Punjab) and then you Mahendra Singh Dhoni (Bihari though his father name does not have Singh in it) and RP Singh (from UP) so i do not know what do you mean by this, can ypu pls elaborate. Harrybabbar (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Harrybabbar,

Dear Harrybabbar,

Well we have agreement then that the origins of the name lie in Rajputana.

To be perfectly honest I have never come across any Rajput described as Sinh and until I had read this entry (which in its original form simply made no mention of the Rajput connection - leaving me gobsmacked)I had no cause to question that the name was other than of Rajput origin with a later Sikh borrowing of it given its militiristic association.

I have read recently (somewhat gallingly) that even some damned brahmins now use the surname!!!!Shurely shome mishtake as they would say in my favourite mag.

I also have to rather shamefacedly admit that I cannot read or write in Hindi and so cannot comment of the spelling in Hindi script.

Given that India is not quite blessed with records of a "hatches, matches and dispatches" variety until the British arrival perhaps we would all be assisted by one reliable historical source - the naming convetions of Kings.

The Mewar lineage names the first king to use the surname of Singh as being Vair Sing who started life in 1103AD(see [2].

You might also see from the entry on Sisodia on Wiki, there was a Sisodia King using the surname Singh was in the 1300s - much before the advent of Sikhism.


Similarly at the time of Prithiviraj Chauhan a number of other kings with him bear the name singh.

The following Wiki entry on Guru Gobind Singh says he directed the usage of the surname Singh on and from 1699 thus:

Then the five volunteers came out of the tent unharmed. These five, who were willing to sacrifice their lives for their Guru, were called Panj Piare ("the five beloved ones").[15] These five volunteers were the first Khalsa (baptized) Sikhs: Daya Ram (Bhai Daya Singh), Dharam Das (Bhai Dharam Singh), Himmat Rai (Bhai Himmat Singh), Mohkam Chand (Bhai Mohkam Singh), and Sahib Chand (Bhai Sahib Singh).

Guru Gobind Rai then baptized these five Sikhs with a liquid mixture named Amrit ("nectar"). He gave them all the name "Singh" (lion), and designated them collectively as Khalsa, the body of baptized Sikhs. The members of the Khalsa consider Guru Gobind as their father, and Mata Sahib Kaur as their mother.[15] The Panj Piare were thus the first baptised Sikhs, and became the first members of the Khalsa brotherhood. Women were also initiated into the Khalsa, and the initiates were called kaur ("princess").[15] The Guru, like other members of the Khalsa, changed his name to Gobind Singh from Gobind Rai.

So this would suggest an ealier Rajput usage - unless of course you argue that modern historians have simply got it wrong and mispelled their names. Do you?

Rajputana (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rajputna


No doubt about the orgin of the word, it originated in Rajputana but it was surely as Sinh , bcoz thats how its written in Devengarhi script(Sanskrit or Hindi) If it would have been Singh it would have been written as सिंघ (Singh) and not as सिंह (Sinh).

And one very important point to is that it was only used by the royalty in Rajputana Kingdom were as its mass usage started when Shri Guru Gobind Singhjee made Sikhs in Punjab and made it mandatory addition in there name.

So the mass usage now a days that you see by Rajputs leaving asides the Royaltis is a very recent phenomenon.

And its not just Brahmins, you even have Yadavs and Banias class using Singh name.....its kind of free for all.

Harrybabbar (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 195.137.181.24 (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Well Harry,

You just can't help it can you? Okay so now you want to make the assumption that only "Royal Rajputs" used it while others didn't and that the adoption is a recent phenomenon, thats pretty ridiculous but lets look at it another way. This still does not explain all the millions of others across the sub continent who use the name, and its not because of Sikhs as you have put it in the past. This does not explain the use of the word Singh (not Sinh or Simha) in places such as South East Asia, Indonesia and other Asian locales and languages.

There were many brave Sikhs, no doubt, but the way you push your POV is as if no one else existed, nor do you have respect for other martial groups of the subcontinent. Furthermore you love to insult the Rajputs, Gurkhas and others as you have in your responses before. That is what landed you into hot waters with the Admins.

Point to be noted: In the wikipedia article the origin of the name for the city of Singapore states: History Main article: History of Singapore Origin of name The name Singapura comes from the Tamil and Sanskrit words singa சிங்க सिंह siṃha ("lion") and புர पुर pura ("city").[9] According to the Malay Annals, this name was given by a 14th century Sumatran prince named Sang Nila Utama, who, landing on the island after a thunderstorm, spotted an auspicious beast on the shore that his chief minister identified as a lion.[10] Recent studies of Singapore indicate that lions have never lived there (not even Asiatic lions), and the beast seen by Sang Nila Utama was likely a tiger, most likely the Malayan Tiger.


Oh my! Here we see the pronunciation of the word SINGH as SINGA or as the Thai would write it SINGHA. So they are pronouncing the word Simha as Singha, but isn't it just bizarre that this is in the 14th century when what you are claiming happened much after 1699. How can we forget your claim that Sikhs had been in Thailand for 200 years and so the Thai were impressed and thats how they got the word....I am sure I can find your quote again from previous attacks you made. Honestly I have to admit, you are original and unique.

So the word Singh was already in use at least 3-4 centuries before the Sikhs adopted it, and that too in places like Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand.

Gorkhali (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Another point:

Singa - from Tamil Singam meaning Lion (in turn from Sanskrit Simha)

Singa or Singha of Tamil origin, and we all know that South Indian languages predate Punjabi by centuries if not milleniums. Even though we North Indians can be arrogant, I know the Southern civilizations of India are far more ancient and have their own distinct rich history which may even be older than anything the North has thought of or ever dreamt to achieve.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_words_of_Tamil_origin

Cheers,

Gorkhali (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

It is still SINGA or SINH as you are rightly saying Gurkhaboy...it is still not SINGH my dear from all the examples that you are qupting be it Singapore or Thailand...and talking about all this admins...you all are basically from one group using names like Sikhscholar and Sikhhistorian just to misguide Sikhs and other people... (there is no way a real Sikh could have got hurt with my discussion with you)....look at how well coordinated you 3 have been immediately mail after mail against me....but i wont give up...Truth had to come out...I never disrespected Rajputs (show me one instant were i did or other groups)..it is you who is disrespectong Sikhs...I even saw you are article on Gurkhas...you say they originated from Rajputs....wow...come on give me a break man...you are good at story telling must say that and linking on thing with other(good going).... Harrybabbar (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Harry,

Your accusations never seem to end and I guess they never will. You started personal attacks from the beginning and have used racial comments and personal insults with no limits. In case you lack an insight into the Gurkha article, the original first Gurkhas were Rajputs thus the Thakuri and Chetris of Nepal claim Rajput descent which is also recognised by the Royal fmailies of Rajasthan and is also mentioned on the official website of the Royal family of Mewar.

Actually no one has coordinated any attack against you, you brought upon yourself with your vandalism, insults and unruly behavior. Your comments are recorded so there is no need to repaste them, anyone can read how insulting you are to others and how you want to push your POVs without citing any genuine facts. In your huge reply to me previously you openly insulted other ethnic (Rajputs and Gurkhas specifically) groups and even went on to make personal attacks. You even went as far as to threaten me with violence.

Why wouldn't a "real" Sikh be offended by the way you are acting, anyone who is decent would. It doesn't matter what background they come from, a decent human being will be offended by how you are acting. And you really have to stop judging people, who gave you the right to decide who is a real Sikh and who isn't. Its the same way you assumed Khukri, the admin, was a Gurkha just because Khukri was the first to block you.

Hopefully one day you will realise that Wikipedia is not for pushing political agendas and POVs, we are trying to make something great here.

Gorkhali (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Well Harrybabar,

Firstly let me say that we Rajputs are all Royalty or Aristocrats - just some are major ones and some a minor ones - so on that basis you are right in saying that all of us royalty used the name. And we dont mind Sikhs borrowing it.

Your position does appear to be somewhat discredited when you go from denying the Rajput origin of the "Singh" usage outright to now conceding that the Royalty used it. This concession appears to be made only becuase you have no option given my last post.

Why dont we do this then?

Why dont you provide us : 1. proof of your assertion; 2. where Guru Gobind Singh obtained the surname from? Pluck it out of the air, then? 3. why the Rajputs and historians have got the spelling of so many Rajput kings names (and Rajputs their own) so very wrong?

I think you will find that Gorkhali simply mentioned the usage in other parts of Asia to demonstrate usage of Singh before the advent of Sikhism.

I am curious to know a bit more about the "Sinh" spelling malarkey that Harry is peddling. Anyone out there (not you Harry) who can write in the Hindi script who can illuminate?

Rajputana (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rajputana,

Come on please read all my discussion with Gurkhaboy and all the previous history of Edits that I have done, I always said that its is सिंह (Sinh) that was used by Rajputs...And mind you SIKHS were always SINGH's ......so pls excuse me on that part.....please check on the facts beforing writing something...just by having a name does not make everybody royal my dear...going by your logic that will even make my building chowkidar also royalty...phew...god save the royalties..ok lets not disgrace them.

Harrybabbar (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gurkhaboy and team are pretty smart since last month they have taken out the actual written word in hindi from Singh article सिंह (Sinh) Harrybabbar (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

and talk with some respect when you talk about our Gurus...and save your insults for me Rajputana Mr. Royalty Minor or Major... Harrybabbar (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Harry,

You have made racial insults, physical threats towards me in previous discussions, and you never refrain from your accusations which are baseless. You love to insult everyone and every other ethnic community and since you got yourself into hot water with the admin you are coming out with conspiracy theories.

Just because your political agenda is not going the way you had hoped does not mean there is a conspiracy against you. It just means that your actions have brought you all this negative energy.

You have already insulted the Rajputs of Nepal in our commentary in the past without realising that Maharani Jind Kaur took refuge under the Nepalese Rajput Prime Minister Jung Bahadur to escape British persecution and only went to England to be reunited with Dilip Singh, her son, when Maharaja Jung Bahadur negotiated with the British that she remain safe. But this is beside the point.

Then you love to go on and insult the Rajputs in India. Well it really doesn't matter Harry, it just reflects on your nature and maturity in discussing topics.


Rajputana is correct in stating that all Rajputs are royal since all Rajputs are descended from a King in the past, the eldest son would sit on the throne while the children of the his younger brothers would end up being called Rajputs since they were all from royal line.

You just made the comment "Sikhs were always Singhs", I guess you really do not know your history at all. The Sikh panth (or sect) started with Guru Nanak Dev, who was born in a Hindu Khatri family of Punjab, in what is now Nankana Sahib in Pakistan. The Sikhs (or disciples) who followed him did not use the name Singh, nor was the turban mandatory, nor did you use the five Ks (Kara/Steel Bracelet, Kanga/Comb, Kacha/Boxer underwear, Kirpan/Dagger, Kass/uncut hair). The name Singh and the five Ks were all adopted on the day of Baisakhi in 1699 by Guru Gobind Rai, who then renamed himself Guru Gobind Singh, and he was also from a Khatri family of Punjab. Guru Gobind Singh wrote his unfinished autobiography Bahcitra Natak, in there you will find the references to the Rajputs and how much the Guru was influenced by them and their courage. Thus the adoption of the name Singh.

And we know that not all Sikhs are brave, just like not all Hindus are brave, not all Christians are brave, not all Muslims are brave, certain groups within each community are brave, not the whole.

Furhtermore, before Guru Gobind Singh, Guru Hargobind took refuge under the protection of the Hill Rajputs of the Shivalik Hill Ranges of Punjab. This point I have made before. The Hill Rajputs used the name Singh, the pronunciation as Singh and have always used it as Singh. At this time the Sikhs NEVER used the name Singh. It was also during this time that Guru Hargobind was taught Gatika, the martial art of sword fencing, from the Rajputs of the Shivalik hill ranges.

From your constant tantrums and conspiracy theories, I am beginning to realise that you may never change your ways, but don't worry, some of us here will always defend the truth and keep the integrity of Wikipedia.

Gorkhali (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also Harry,

Note that your accusation that I removed the word Sinh from the article is unwarranted, look at the history of the article and see where I have done editing. Your accusations are baseless and if you keep it up, I am sure you will get yourself into a tight corner again as you always do.

Gorkhali (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


I took a look at the editing history and I see that you are referring to the frustration you feel because I didn't aloow for you to vandalise the article with your POVs. If you look at the Etymology section, all the names are there for everyone to see. Harry you need to understand that he/she who screams loudest is not necessarily right, so I will repeat again Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge, its not about pushing political agendas and vandalising articles that go against your POV.

You have edited footnoted sentences in the article to fit your POVs as well as deleted those sections you felt went against your POVs. This is not what Wikipedia is here for. Perhaps you can learn something and broaden your horizon and knowledge, sadly, this is not the case.

Gorkhali (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gurkaboy, Thanks for refreshing my Sikh History but it always good to hear from Hindu view point which is always the same, and iam sure Sikhscholar & Hiostrian (All RSS funded & supported) will support you on this...Remember this points from a real Skh point of View...Guru Gobind Singh never wrote Bahcitra Natak..(it is very debatable and not been given stamp of approval by true Sikhs)it is basically a mischevious RSS Brahmin propoganda...every thing written in Bachitra Natak goes against the basic teachings of Sikh Tenenants...so Shri Guru Gobind Singhje getting influenced by Rajput is kind of funny....infact he inspired Rajputs like Lachman Dev who later became Banda Singh Bahadur and shook the Mughal Empire in Punjab Region... Ohh my.. so Gatika The Sikh martial art was taught to us by Rajputs...are you crazy Gurkhboy...were Jatts and other martial races who were Gurus followers wearing Bangels during that time or what.... Harrybabbar (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL...u ignorant sikh, dont u know that Gatka was taught by a Rajput Raja to the sikhs when Guru Hargobind was the Guru. The sikhs were a mix of non-martial ( non rajput ) lower castes of Punjab...did they even have the time to leave the plough that they would have learnt to hold a sword ? Tikka Sangram Singh (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


yes offcourse you guys have removed सिंह and replaced it with ₦₦₦₦... Harrybabbar (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Harry,

If you keep accusing people of belonging to the RSS then this will not look favorable in front of the Admins again since you are again making personal attacks. Calling someone an RSS member is not different than calling someone a terrorist or personally insulting them or even making an attack on their beliefs. I hope you change your ways, but seeing your tactics till now, I think its unlikely.

It would be best if you took up the controversy of the Bachitra Natak with University Professors like Dr Grewal at Punjab University Sikh Studies department since he and others are the ones who taught it in their classrooms when we were in Sikh Studies.

Its amazing how on one hand you claimed to be a Rajput and now love to downgrade their importance in Indian and Sikh history. Just further shows your genuine nature. Also shows your claim of being part Rajput as false, Sikhs who are Rajputs are very proud of their lineage, you on the other hand do not miss an opprotunity to insult this ethnic group which has be respected by countless invaders including the Mughals, Afghans, Persians and the British. Sikh Royalty claims descent from the Rajputs although they are Jat Sikhs. And yet you revel in the fact of insulting them and pushing your POVs and political agenda.

No one said the Jats are not important. You love to insult other groups, and yet you have no conception of India's history or its timeline. The Jats were a powerful force, not just in Punjab but elsewhere as well, but they had not risen to full glory until the leadership of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. He was a brilliant ruler and a statesman and established the Jats as an organised force in the Punjab. However, unlike yourself, I do respect other martial groups of India and I include and give them their just respect and regards. You on the other hand insult others and have a POV agenda.

However, you forget that all of the Jat Sikh Royals are related to Hindu Rajput Nobility. Doesn't really matter what you say, they won't agree with your statements either. I really do suggest you contact the University of Toronto and contact Dr. Joseph T O'Connell, Professor Emeritus, South Asian Studies Department, he is a famous Indologist, did his PhD from Harvard and was one of the top researchers along with Dr McLeod (they were personal friends). I am sure he can remove a lot of the myths you carry. While you are at it, you can inquire who I am and he will be more than glad to let you know.

I suggest you keep it up, it makes for good entertainment.

Gorkhali (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Another point Harry,

I would never speak against Guru Gobind Singh, however I have to disagree that he inspired Rajputs.

The Rajput rebellion took place because of other reasons and it was led by Maharana Raj Singh of Mewar (Udaipur), Chatrasal of Bundelkhand, Durgadas Rathore and Shivaji of Maharashtra. The Rajput rebellion was very famous and is a major reason why the Mughal Empire fell to ruin.

None of them were influenced by Guru Gobind Singh, however, Guru Sahib saved the Punjab region by inspiring local folk to rise up and defend themselves. He created a martial tradition among many groups in Punjab who were not originally fighters and gave them a spirit to fight persecution. And this is because He saw how the Sikhs reacted to the death of his father Guru Tegh Bahadur, no Sikh protested and instead many saved themselves by hiding. Thus Guru Gobind Singh decided to change these same people and make them warriors, that is one of many things that impresses me about the Guru (I guess you'll probably also claim that the word Guru also was not used before the creation of Sikhism).

Sadly, Guru Gobind Singh had to escape Punjab and was trying to make His way to Patna (which happens to be on the other side of India). He had to escape because His followers failed him and many deserted Him. Guru Gobind Singh is one of the bravest heroes of Indian history who made the ultimate sacrifice of giving all four sons to martyrdom. It was then that he inspired Laxman Singh, a Rajput who renunciated the world and became an ascetic, that this was wrong since there was injustice being committed in the Punjab and as a Rajput he must perform his duty.

Thus Laxman Singh, whose ascetic name was Madho Das became Banda Bahadur or Banda Bir Bairagi, and yes he was a rajput, the same Rajputs you show so much disrespect and despise. He created the first Sikh state, sadly he and his Banda Akalis were betrayed to the Mughal government by a group of other Sikhs because of Banda Bahadur's growing importance caused jealousy among other Sikh factions.

I still love your claim about 50% of the British Indian Army being Sikh and the influence of Sikhs in Bollywood, thus both of these influenced the Singh name to become so popular. Honestly, everytime I feel stressed or down I read it and I laugh. I honestly have to thank you for that piece of humor. Truly original.

Gorkhali (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Harrybabbar (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Gurkha

And You also stop giving reference about Bacchitr Natak here and stop misleading with your POVs, You forget that I said Iam from Rajput/Jatt so I have observed both the clans and I know inside out of both the clans thats why iam not afraid of telling the truth...taking pride in what you are is something else and building Air an Gas around some clan is which I do not belive in (which you are doing here)......

By the way I never insulted Rajputs infact you were the one who started by stating "according to history the Mughals had defeated the Sikhs. It wasn't until the disintegration of the Mughal empire by other groups that the Sikhs gain prominence with Maharaja Ranjit Singh"...were as I was was stating time again and still mainting it was Rajputs used सिंह (Sinh)name as in there mother tongue Hindi and Sikhs use SINGH in the Mother tongue

And what if said Sikh constituted 50% of British army(does that in anyway disrespect other martial race) that time you justed started of from one topic to another..ok ..so dont you blame me...i just answered you correctly on your hollow claims...

Rajput rebelled during Emperor Aurangzebs time..so that didnt bring the down fall of Mughals in anyways...Howcome here you are claiming Chatrapati Shivaji as Rajput when he was a Maratha...Marathas are seprate Martial Race from Western India..when you always say & maintain in all your statement "Sikh Royalty claims descent from the Rajputs although they are Jat Sikhs" howcome you include Shivaji Maharaj as Rajput when his grandfather Maloji Bhonsle also claimed that he is from Rajput clan...Must say you use double standards when it suits you hain Gurkhboy...Maratha in themselves were a Strong and dominante Martial force in Central & Western India

By the ways there were lot of Muslim rulers (Bijapur, Golcoda,Awadh, Nizams etc)and majorly the Pasthuns which were resposible for fall of Mughal Empire buddy...so please do not give False Glory to Rajputs..they were just effective in Rajasthan, Bundelkhand regions...correct me if iam wrong..

Major reasons for Decline of Mughal Empire was read this link Mughal Empire Link title Mughal Empire experienced dramatic reverses as regional nawabs or governors broke away and founded independent kingdoms such as the Marathas to the southwest and the Sikhs in the northwest. In the war of 27 years from 1681 to 1707, the Mughals suffered several heavy defeats at the hands of the Marathas. In the early 1700s the Sikhs became increasingly militant in an attempt to fight the oppressive Mughal rule. They had to make peace with the Maratha armies. Nader Shah defeated the Mughal army at the huge Battle of Karnal in February, 1739. After this victory, Nader captured and sacked Delhi, carrying away many treasures, including the Peacock Throne.[6] In 1761, Delhi was raided by Ahmed Shah Abdali after the Third battle of Panipat.

So another Gas balloon of Gurkha goes bust or maybe you can edit Mughal Empire article and fill it with your Gas & Air and then protect it with your team of Admins..

YES Shree Guru Gobind Singhjee inspired Rajputs and not just Rajputs but also Jatts, Khatris and countless other casts, belivers thats why he created Khalsa and his followeres embraced it... And why are you adding your bit that Shree Guru Gobind Singhjee said this to Banda Singh Bahadur "as a Rajput he must perform his duty" are you still in your Bacchitar Natak mode or what...Shree Guru Gobind Singhjee created Khalsa which never belives in cast system..he would have never said this thing which goes against his teaching... And there was no betrayal by Banda Bahadhur fellow Sikhs..it was a verballe dispute were few of senior Sikh Generals escaped when they were under seige by Mughal armies.....so please do not try to distort history by adding you POVs..

So thats good that i am entertaining you...I need to return your favour Gurkhaboy..like your claims of Gurkha decending from Rajputs (thats make you Rajputana brothers man)...offcourse also about that every Rajput has been using Singh as middle name fro 7th century onwards....hey by the way my congratulation to you on being a royalty what are you Major or Minor which one let me know that please...see you also need to entertain me so let me know..

Harrybabbar (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)



Actually Harry you seem to not be aware of many issues in India's history. When I said the Phulkian states claim Rajput descent but are Jatt Sikh, I am stating it as such because you have constantly bashed Rajputs in your previous posts. This claim is not just known among the family, but is also recorded in the Dutch East India Archives in England.

The statement that Shivaji is a Rajput is not from me personally but is taken from the fact that the Royal family of Udaipur (also stated oon their website), the descendants of Shivaji, Annals and Anitiquities of Rajasthan by Col James Tod and other sources have all stated this. This is also a point of discussion among Maharashtrian historians. Also you can go to Shivaji and read the section about his early life, there is a reference there as well.

Now lets address your Gurkha bashing views. First of all you insult Gurkhas "Offcourse Gurkhas are Cheap, Loyal, and Brave and ready to work for peanuts and are not an enterprising community." Also lets not forget "Please why don’t you give me a little background as to how and when Rajputs in 16th Century entered Nepal and are sure this were the real Rajputs or maybe those C grade ones from Bihar, Bengal and Awadh area (not even sure if they were real Sinhs or just pretending to be one). And did you guys give your women to them to start a new breed of Sinh Gurkhas…….. (Or what). It was mainly adopted or copied by Nepalies Royalty from India or was bestowed upon them by British for supporting them in suppressing Sepoy Mutiny (1857) in Lucknow and Gorakhpur area."

Your confusion over the Rajput descent comes from the fact that you look at Gurkhas as only Gurung, Magar, Rais which are Nepalese hill tribes who make the bulk of thew famous Gurkha soldiers so legendary throughout the world. The article states the orgin of how Gurkhas came into being and that begins with the Rajputs. You didn't bother to read the whole article did you? Famous Gurkha personalities like General Kunwar Balbadhar Singh, who fought the British in Nalapani and died while serving as an officer in Maharaja Ranjit Singh's army in Afghanistan was a Rajput. So was General Amar Singh Thapa, so was Kazi Bal Nar Singh Rana (who was descended from the Royal fmaily of Udaipur and is recognised by the website for the Royal fmaily of Udaipur). The list goes on, so in Nepal, Rajputs are called Thakuri, Chetri and Kshaktriya, these are the Gurkhas who are Rajputs. Now coming to the origin point, the Royal family of Nepal is of Rajput origin, this is a know story. The Queens of Nepal would come from Kangra and this practice diminsihed during the Rana regieme. The paternal line claims descent through Bappa Rawal. Thus your confusion stems from the fact that you see all Gurkhas as the same whereas everyone knows that Gurkhas come from different ethnic groups, the original first Gurkhas were Rajputs who brought that culture and philosophy to Nepal. Furthermore, every Rajpout Royal house and every Sikh Royal house is related to the Rana family of Nepal. Also another point, the Jodhpur Lancers who were part of the Royal armies of India which went on the Indian expedition to Europe in Wolrd War 1 to support the allies all carried the Khukri since Gurkhas originally came from Rajasthan.

Your attiutude towards Rajputs is obvious: "majority of Rajput Kings had befriended and married there daughters to Mughals…of course few exceptions being Maharana Pratap & Prithvi Raj Chauhan (that’s the reasons lots of also Rajputs became Sikhs in 16th Century)."

Well glad to see you had some deceny fro Maharana Pratap. Prthiviraj Chauahn was much earlier and was not present for these dark chapters of Rajput history, but I am bringing up this comment because you stated this only in retaliation for my comment that the Mughals had defeated the Sikhs and the Sikhs had to face some very dark days for a time period. What was wrong in saying that? Its the truth, however it really touched a nerve which caused you to react in a "tit for tat" manner.

Yes, it was a dark time for Rajputs and many dishonored themselves, while many did not and chose the road to sacrifice, but unlike yourself, we accept this bitter fact and we also realise that the Mughals wanted alliances with Rajputs to strengthen their hold in India through marriage because the Rajputs held importance in India. The Mughals did not seek other marriage alliances with gourps because if was of no importance to them. So you can look at this bitter reality in two ways.

A classic comment against the Rajput Royals of India was: "Like Rajput King Ganga Singh even other Kings of Princely States of India and Nepal were given Utmost respect in some way or the other (if not WWI seat)….but keep in my mind my Gurkha friend that this were the Princely States who used to lick British Asses and were Puppet Kings."

Lick Brit Ass....sweet. That was a classic, I have to hand to you Harry. Although the Sikh Phulkian States also had to side with the British against Maharaja Ranjit Singh's force in the second Anglo-Sikh War, no one blames them because the British were the strongest military power in India at that time and the Princely states, by negotiating with the Brits and becoming allies, were able to protect their people from exploitation unlike the Indians who lived under direct British rule.

" 90% of the people hanged by British during freedom struggle were Sikhs" Thats a big claim Harry, can you back it up? That means you are disregarding Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra....and the rest of India for that matter, even Burma which was part of India until 1936.


"And Iam sure in Nepal, Manipur the Singh name was just taken or copied from India, similarly like Khan "..... Um Harry, Manipur is in India.


But I love your all time amazing quote from Dec 13 2007:

"Singh as a name became more popular and better recoganized then Sinh after Sikhs became Singhs, Sikh used to constitute almost 50% of British Army due to this Singh got better recognisation from British, Punjabi Diaspora across the world and Punjabi dominance of Indian Film Industry also helped in Singh as a name Internationalized....."

You forget that Wikipedia is for knowledge, not POVs.

Yes many Sikhs were brave, but not all, just like I have said before, not all Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs are brave.

Umm I am not distorting History with Povs about Banda Bahadur, that viewpoint of history was taken from Kushwant Singh.

You are not only interesting to myself but to others. You attract a lot of negativity because of your attitude towards others. The Admins have already seen this, everyone can read your comments.

I accept the fact that you won't change and you will push your POVs in any way possible.

Gorkhali (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

About your bachitra Natak comment, again I am repeating, go take up the issue with Dr Grewal at Punjab University. They teach it in Sikh studies class, so don't try to say that I am in some "mode". Seriously Harry, you have a lot issues to address, none of which you back up.

Gorkhali (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to you for my late revert...i know you will be getting jittery all the time in anticipation of my revert (pls relaxe do not stay awake at midnight and check Wikipedia...I have not corrected Singh article yet).. By the way I never bashed Rajputs, you are the one who started bashing Sikhs first (ur comments on 18th Dec) and took the simple & truthfull arguement of usage of Singh word Rajputs used सिंह (Sinh)name as in there mother tongue Hindi and Sikhs use SINGH in the Mother tongue from one topic to another like from Singapore to Thailand to Sanskrit to Malaya and now you even reached till Tamilnadu..And everywere were you are quotting examples of usage of Singh word the only language it is Spelt & prononuced SINGH is in Punjabi(gurumukhi)...ain that right ...

You have raised Shivaji point again and trying to include him as Rajput Why even you know this is very debatable topic...are you short of Rajput heroes...or you want to prove anyhow by Hook or Crook that downfall of Mughal was because of Rajputs...which everybody knows is not true.

So even if I agree with the your Gurkha claims of being Rajputs...but one thing is very obvious and clear from your explanation above is that only the Royalties in Gurkha are Rajput and only they use name SINH...and the same way goes for Rajputs of Rajasthan as Gurkhas are so closely related and they came from Rajasthan (Bappa Raval lineage)....So the claim of every Rajput is a Royalty (Major or Minor) is definately not correct and also your claim that every Rajput has been using this name sice 7th century...But if you see the ground realty in India & Nepal you see every Gurkha and Rajputs have started using Singh name now days..(though its a 60 to 80 year old phenomena and since last 25 to 40 years there has been a spurt in usage of Singh name Rajputs, Gurkhas and by other communities as well)...so were Iam wrong...

And I apologies to you on my comments about Gurkhas which was done on the heat of the moment bcoz of your instegation..but why you fail to put that I also mentioned (Here again let me clarify Iam not doubting about valour and martial standards of Gurkhas it just issue of name)....you just love to play with words and display selected qutes that suites youe agenda ...

Yes, it was a dark time for Rajputs and many dishonored themselves, while many did not and chose the road to sacrifice, but unlike yourself, we accept this bitter fact and we also realise that the Mughals wanted alliances with Rajputs to strengthen their hold in India through marriage because the Rajputs held importance in India. So you can look at this bitter reality in two ways.

Sorry I do not agree with your above statement, it was only after I stated truth you giving statement like otherwise you are just building Airs & Gas around Rajputs with statements like Martial Standards Set by Rajputs and They bought downfall of Mughals, were as You were always quick to point out Sikh defeats against Mughals (but you fail to see the point that Khalsa Empire was an acheivement in few 100 years and Rajputs were ther for more then 1000 years). and Marriage alliance of Mughals & Rajputs it could be looked through lot of other ways, so lets not discuss it...

You are crazy Gurkha if state "but keep in my mind my Gurkha friend that this were the Princely States who used to lick British Asses and were Puppet Kings." that surly include all princly states including Phulkian States...why are you again getting excited on this....See how you play with words and add unneccessary topics..and try to downgrade Sikhs purposely..

I think you need to refresh History and check British colonial record you will find that 90% of the people who were hanged during freedom struggle of India were Sikhs....come on now were does it deny Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra....and the rest of India for that matter, even Burma which was part of India until 1936...you need to take time out maybe take a vacation Gurkha....

And I still stand by statement that Singh as a name became more popular and better recoganized then Sinh after Sikhs became Singhs, Sikh used to constitute almost 50% of British Army due to this Singh got better recognisation from British, Punjabi Diaspora across the world and Punjabi dominance of Indian Film Industry also helped in Singh as a name Internationalized and also Nationalized...maybe you should visit India and see the ground reality as to how much Punjabi culture, food, language, costumes are dominante then you will understand this statement.

Infact Gurkhboy you pushing your POVs through lot false stories, mythological stories and legends not me...the only difference is you have team of Anti Sikh people supporting you and but I will not let you get away with you that.. Harrybabbar (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Punjabi is a culture[edit]

Harry that is where you lack logic. Your comment: And I still stand by statement that Singh as a name became more popular and better recoganized then Sinh after Sikhs became Singhs, Sikh used to constitute almost 50% of British Army due to this Singh got better recognisation from British, Punjabi Diaspora across the world and Punjabi dominance of Indian Film Industry also helped in Singh as a name Internationalized and also Nationalized...maybe you should visit India and see the ground reality as to how much Punjabi culture, food, language, costumes are dominante then you will understand this statement.

It fails to understand that Punjabi is a culture not a religion. Sikhism is a religion. Punjabi is a culture whih belongs to Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. 2/3 of Punjab belongs to Pakistan and there are more Muslim Punjabis than any other faith group. Hijacking Punjabi culture and thinking its only Sikh is wrong.

To constantly argue with you over history when you provide no references is useless. You are a boy with a computer and you just want the world to hear you yell and scream. Doesn't make you right.

Yes Harry, you are right, everything came from the Sikhs. There was nothing else in India before this. Nothing existed, it was just a barren landscape. Yes you defeated the Mughals and the British too. And when aliens came from Mars, you dealt with them as well. Way to go.

Yes because of the Sikhs in Thailand, Thailand adopted the name Singh (as you claimed). Yes you are the origin of all dialects and languages hroughout the subcontinent. No one acheived anything except you.

The entire subcontinent comprised of Muslims, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Christians and all other ethinc and religious groups owe everything to you. No body did anything, no one created language, it was all your original idea.

You have proven what countless editors have said about Wikipedia before. Its complete anarchy.

I am removing my work from the article and you boys can have your fun.

Gorkhali (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Give us a break[edit]

Please don't edit my comments.And i have forgotten what i re-wrote and i don't have the time to get back to revision historyAjjay (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ajjay, I did not edit your comments, I simply reverted back to what you had said originally because you made a valid point about Sikhs and them being the most recognised public face of North India everywhere. I also know that Admins don't agree with removing comments from the discussion page, thus I reverted. No insult intended.

Gorkhali (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gurkhboy nobody can deny that Sikhs are forebearears and Saviour of Punjabi Culture & language, everbody knows what happen with Punjabi Language & culture after partition of Punjab the punjabi language was abandoned by both Muslims and Hindus in there respective countries.

Instead of wrongly accusing me of being vandel, maybe you should concentrate more on as to when & why Rajputs abandoned name सिंह (Sinh) and adopted Punjabi word सिंघ (Singh) as used by Sikhs originaly....

Also please explain your reasoning for taking out actual written ref word in hindi from Singh article सिंह (Sinh)..why was this done when this is how it was and still is written (& prononuced) in Hindi (Devengiri scrip) the language of Rajputs.

Please do not deviate this discussion to other topics when you cannot bear to hear the truth..also would request all the Admins which Gurkhaboy has involved to not just blindly follow what he is telling you all, also please try to look it through correct perspective..and let the truth prevail

Harrybabbar (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Guru Gobind Singh mandated the use of "Singh" in 1699. Several Rajputs had been using "Singh" earlier. For examples, please see Rawal Ratan Singh (ruled 1302-03), Man Singh I of Amber (1540-1614), Maharana Udai Singh (1522–1572), Pratap Singh, Maharana of Mewar (1540-1597), Jai Singh I (1611-1667), Maharaja Jaswant Singh (1629-1680).
As for सिंह, the pronunciation of anusvara varies greatly in the Indic scripts. सिंह can be read differently as Siŋhə (IPA), Sinha or Simha. Anusvara doesn't necessarily mean the sound of "n" -- it may also denote the velar nasal sound (IPA /ŋ/). utcursch | talk 15:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Harry please don't go on and on about your claims.It is like going around in a circle.If you want to change something in the article,then nobody is stopping you, but you need to back your claims with references from a book or article or something similar and which is not POV.Whether you like it or not but that's the way wiki works.Ajjay (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Utcursch,

Rajputs used the name written and pronounced as सिंह (Sinh) and that also not every Rajput..the kings name that you quotting above the names have been taken from Mughal history records, and there records are in persian & urdu prononuced it as Singh, because of there dialect being more similar to punjabi. Harrybabbar (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

RhubarbRhubarbRhubarbRhubarbRhubarbRhubarbRhubarbRhubarbYAWN!!!RhubarbRhubarbRhubarbRhubarbRhubarbYAWN!!! Oh and by the why I think the entry now reads correctly for the Singh name. RhubarbRhubarbRhubarbRhubarbRhubarbRhubarbRhubarbRhubarbRhubarbYAAAAAAAWN!!!! Rajputana (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

everything ok with you major or minor...whatever you areHarrybabbar (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything Airee. Now why dont you do something worthy of a true warrior (I am bestowing you the benefit of the doubt) and go to the brahmin site and jeep those god-botherers honest.Rajputana (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


A being a Sikh i do not need any certification from you, if you still have doubts, it can be cleared by whatever way you want and by the way I let you deal with Brahmins they are Rajputs forte ....we have dealt with Pathans...who were worthy adversary to us...

Harrybabbar (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gurkhaboy you seem to be very active in Singh article,I thought you washed your hands of this article....hmmm some motivation for me to correct this article again. 05:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Harrybabbar (talk)

Harrybaby,

Invective is no substitute for reasoned arguments based on facts - but on that you are a lost cause. We Rajputs do all of that including keeping brahmins in place - but then we are born to rule rather than operate as some mercenary rabble needing inpsiration from religious zeal.I am chastising myself for descending to your level of debate but I am only human and cannot resist a free-kick (but then you probably play that effette game of cricket and no not of this reference)Rajputana (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

by the way just for the records India will have the highest population of Royalties in the world with Rajputs populating Indian States of Rajasthan, MP, Bihar, UP, Himachael, Jharkhand (Majority of this states come under BIMARU States coined by Indian Economist)....so what do you say Rajput population in India will be around 7 to 8 crores out which 50% are below poverty line...phew dont you think thats a miserable situation even after being an Royalty Major or Minor ...ye born to rule BIMARU states.... Hey by the way you should also approach Guinness book of world Records...…6 crores royalties plus your lost cousins Gurkha’s as well that is some record worth mentioning... Harrybabbar (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Truth[edit]

Singh is also used by Hindus. Theres soo many Hindus with caste Singh and Females also have the name Singh. You must mention Singh is also a caste among Hindus. --GauthamKumarSingh (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin and Usage[edit]

The ref. cited [3] clearly states that the origin lies in Kashtriya and usage is among rajputs and sikhs. further it wold be nice if the contributer states the page number, edition etc for further reference. Please don't be selective while citing references, adding kashtriya is imp. from point of citing ref.

Also i think we should nominate this ref. for checking it's reliablity.ThanksAjjay (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ajay before contributing you might want to go through your refs properly. It says it is also used by many communities. and its a known fact, Singh can also be used with Arora Khatri, Kashatria all them. So your making the article look stupid by saying only Kashatriya when i can name you soo many Hindu Clans that havbe Singh in their name. --GauthamSingh (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The ref. was cited by you, not me. Further it lists the hindu Kashatriys to be the origin of name. So i think it properly belongs in history, as to the origin of name being by Hindu Kshatriyas.
Indian (northern states): originally a Hindu Kshatriya name but now adopted by many different communities, from Sanskrit si?mha ‘lion’, hence ‘hero’ or ‘eminent person’. It is freely added to Rajput and Sikh male personal names and in the U.S. often serves as a Sikh surname.
This is what is listed in the ref., which does not provide the edition, pageno. and how it appears in the book it gives as its source. So it cannot be actually verified, online that is, so i think it is appropriate to move Kshatriya thing in origin or history section.Ajjay (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I have looked at reference No 3 and it is some American dictionary. Ajay, since when has such a reference become an authoritative statement on the origins of Singh let alone any other historical fact? I see no basis for you suggestion. Rajputana (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Then remove it :) Ajjay (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right in that regard, Ajay, but I will leave that to IT boffins who know more about this than I do. That statement contradicts the later one o about the first use by Rajputs which appears to be based on historical records.Rajputana (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Glad to see a more civilized bunch....but for how long???? Gorkhali (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding usage[edit]

The ref. listed for Kashtriya usage does not seem to be a reliable source. Needs to be fixed.Shalimer (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Its been fixed. Thanks Gorkhali (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC) ajay sock puppets talking to self.

Theres enough sources to claim Singh originally an Hindu caste. are you mentally challenged or something. If you want to create your own article about Singh in Sikhism heres an start Singh (Sikhism) you cannot hide information. --AlexanderTheGreatSikh (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually your comments and edits reflect more on your own issues and personality. Singh is a name, not a caste. That is what you don't understand. Gorkhali (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

see It is used as a common surname and middle name in North India by many communities if you created that, it clearly states surname. singh is hindu caste not name or nick name. --AlexanderTheGreatSikh (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Singh is a name, not a caste. A caste is a social stratification found commonly within the Varna system of the Hindus. There are four main castes, there are some subcastes and then there are Jatis. Among the second caste, which is the Kashaktriyas, the Rajputs were the elite and highest Jati within that group, they were also the first to use the name Singh. Later Singh was adopted and used by many other communities and castes within India. Sikhs, Yadav, Khatri, Arora, Jats, different ethnic groups of the Gurkhas, and many other communities use the name Singh, and it does not represent a Caste. An individual's caste can usually be figured out by their last name and where in India/Nepal they come from.

If Singh is a Hindu caste as you so claim, then provide some solid evidence (which I know does not exist).

Gorkhali (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa!!! I dont know about this second caste malarkey! Rajputs come second to no one. Singh is a caste name in Northern India esp in the States of Rajasthan, UP, Bihar and even Nepal (if the naming system of the Kings of Nepal is an indication.) There is then the later Sikh usage but from this discussion it appears that others may have adopted it too but it would appear that these people are simply aping the Rajput tradition thus re-affriming its primarily caste associations. Rajputana (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rajputana, I don't mean the Rajputs are second to anyone, I am simply discussing the caste system since Alex is harping on the fact that Singh is a caste, which it is not, especially not these days. It true that is originally used by the Rajputs but today Singh is used by others too.

Gorkhali (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Gorkhali, I understand the poitn you are trying to make but I respectfully suggest to you that you are not right. The name in its primary usage is still very much caste based in the states of Northern India that I previously mentioned. It is a fact that when Indians hear that I am a Singh they do not assume that I am anything other than a Rajput and I would suggest to you that that would be the commonly understood usage amongst all Indians. The aberrations that are being mentioned in the above discussion are just that - exceptions. Dont get me wrong - I think the caste system should have any place in a modern India. Rajputana (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rajputana,

I understand your point. Since I am under tight time constraints perhaps you could edit the passage. I would love to see this article improve everyday, since I put a lot of effort into it in the beginning. Thanks for the points you brought up. I understand that most people in our community associate Singh with Rajput identity, which is true, I just feel cautious since many groups began using the name, thus the need for clarity that not everyone is a Rajput who uses Singh, but Singh is originally a Rajput name. In any case, I completely understand your point. Cheers, Gorkhali (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Gorkhali

I found the recent edit of this piece to be excellent. Trust you agree. I noticed a little gremlin in my last entry - I meant to say that caste should have NO place in a modern India. Its a damned curse.But with all the big-noting crass brahmins (esp those from the South) it will take soem years to goRajputana (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of Singh in Hindus as a middle name or last name[edit]

The use of Singh in Hindus as a middle name or last name denotes automatically that they are from the Kshatriya varna and are of the Rajput sub-caste or are descended from them where intermarriages have happened with Jats and Gujjars etc.. Original occupation of Kshtariyas and Rajputs was of being warriors and rulers, many families under different circumstances over the centuries intermarried or changed their profession to being farmers, carpenters etc. but retained Singh in their name denoting their ancestry and original family genealogy and caste.

Rajputs / hindus always used SINGH and not sinh, Sinh is used by those Rajputs living in Gujarat as the local Gujarati language demands so. SINGH is written as SINH in the Gujarati language. Any Rajputs / Hindus living abroad in foreign countries using Sinh as their middle or last name have their roots or ancestry in Gujarat, their ancestors while living in Gujarat region for centuries stated writing Singh as Sinh after they got assimilated in the local culture and adopted Gujarati as their mother tongue.

Thanks

Atulsnischal (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


Added clarification: ......... although in present times it has also been adopted by other Hindu groups not directly falling within these two groups by mainly those who trace their origins to Kshatriya Rajput ancestors as the religious and customary use of this name has been specifically the exclusive privilege of the Hindu warrior caste under the traditional Hindu caste system of Varnas and Jāti.

Atulsnischal (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don’t just explain why it’s written as सिंह (Sinh) in Hindi, when it could have been written as सिंघ (Singh)........Rajput were SINH always....Harrybabbar (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop trolling. It has been explained several times to you -- I'll try explaining once again. The anusvara represents velar nasal sound, in addition to the sounds 'n' (as in 'नंदा' i.e. नन्दा) and 'm' (as in 'अंबा' i.e. 'अम्बा'). For example, 'गंगा' is not pronounced as 'गन्गा'. Similarly, 'सिंह' is not necessarily pronounced as 'सिन्ह'. Depending on regional variations, it is pronounced as 'सिंह' (velar nasal sound), 'सिन्ह', and 'सिम्ह'. utcursch | talk 12:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said Utcursch. Congratulations to the person who most recently editted the Singh entry. It now reads in a matter-of-fact and dispassionate way that entries in an encylopaedia shoudl read.Rajputana (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

First you stop trolling...dont give this bullshit about anusvara.....you are trying to confuse everybody by this..there is no such thing about anusvara...you are very cunning ...all of you are even ashamed to even put सिंह' in the article....atleast have some little respect for your mother tongue hindi....ha ha anusvara what a joke....Harrybabbar (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Anus what??? Wonder if Utcursch was thinking of you when he wrote that word, Harrybaby. Probably not his style but would be mine. Ooooo! I hope I am not being disrespectful of my mother tongue (think Frankie Howerd, Harry)!!! Hope you dont mind me joining in whilst you are in that jokey mood. Rajputana (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

About pronunciation and writing of Asiatic lion / Singh in Hindi[edit]

It is pronounced and written in Hindi as: (Hindi: िसंह "Sa" with a small "Ee" ki Matra before it, with a point on top suggesting half "Na" and then full "Ha. The half "Na" suggested with the point on top is "silent" in spoken Hindi.

As in English you cant write the exact word, after English came to India they wrote the word as "Singh", but Gujaratis in Gujarat write and pronounce it completely different, Gujarati is a different language. They write it and pronounce it close to "Sinh", their Sinh means Asiatic Lion too but is not spelled as or written the same as Hindi.

Please do not continually vandalize the Hindi correct spelling of Singh which is (Hindi: िसंह, specially foreign born editors who have not studied Hindi as a major subject in schools are requested here not to vandalize please to prove all kinds of wierd POV theories.

Atulsnischal (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

About use of Singh is Sikhs from http://www.realsikhism.com/faq/lastname.html[edit]

"

Q: Why do Sikh men have the last name Singh and all women, have the last name Kaur?

A: Singh means a lion and Kaur means a princess. In Sikhism these titles eliminate discrimination based on “family name” (which denotes a specific caste) and reinforces that all Sikhs are sovereigns under God.

This tradition started because through the last name one could distinguish what caste you are from. Just by hearing the last name they would say, “Oh, you are the lowest” or “Oh, you are the middle” or “Oh, you are from high class”. Thus the Guru eliminated the last name from all the Sikhs so that no one could tell the caste and achieved equality for all Sikhs. He gave Singh as a last name to all the Sikh men and Kaur to all the Sikh women. Women were not treated as equals before the time of the Gurus, and so to ensure equality, a movement for women’s liberation was started five hundred years ago with the Sikh faith. The Guru said, “You are my beloved princesses, my daughters. You must be respected. How can this world be without you?” He admonished men for being rude and bad to women. He said, “Without women this world cannot be. So give them rights, give them equal respect.” So the Sikh faith says that you must respect women. Normally, when a woman would get married, she would take the last name of the family she went to. Since Guru eliminated the name, he said, “You don’t have to take anybody else's name. You are an individual, you are a princess, and you keep Kaur as your last name.” It gave women a lot of self-respect.


Q: Some Sikhs still use Gill, Sandhu and Sidhu etc. as their last name and they treat Singh as their middle name, why is that?

A: Those Sikhs are not completely following the Guru. Guru specifically said to use Singh as your last name. Those Sikhs are much interested in preserving their caste. A real Sikh will only use Singh or Kaur as his or her last name.


Related Topics

  1. What is the role and status of women in Sikh society?
  2. Do Sikhs believe in equality of all humanity?

Back to Frequently Asked Questions

"

Source: http://www.realsikhism.com/faq/lastname.html; http://www.garamchai.com/articleSingh.htm


Atulsnischal (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

HELP!!! NEEDED for Article on Sikh Rajputs[edit]

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

Thanks

Atulsnischal (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

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

Thanks

Atulsnischal (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary definition: Singh[edit]

"

Singh

The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English | Date: 2008

Singh / sing/ • n. a title or surname adopted by certain warrior castes of northern India, esp. by male members of the Sikh Khalsa.


© The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English 2008, originally published by Oxford University Press 2008.

"

Source: [4]


Atulsnischal (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OED, Wonderful for understanding the Queen's English - and some mundane versions too but not such a great source for understanding Indian practices.Rajputana (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Borrowed comment: Two camps in Sikhs?[edit]

"

@ jcom972:

You are mistaken my friend about the Sikhs. There are two camps of Sikhs these days, the ones who identify themselves with the Hindus (these are the ones who follow the original path) and a new group which identifies itself with Islam (began during the late 1970s and picked up in 1984).

Even among Sikh nobility (Patiala Faridkot Nabha and Jind) they identify themselves with the greatest of India's warriors the Rajputs. Sikh martial tradition borrowed a lot from the Rajputs including the Khanda symbol, Saffron cloth, the carrying of the dagger and the most obvious, the adoption of the name Singh.

There are some Sikhs who have begun to keep muslim names to identify more with Muslims and are antiHindu (ie Tiger Jeet Singh the famous wrestler has named his son Ali). Many Sikhs believe that Sikhism is a mix of Hinduism and Islam because many of Kabir's writings are in the Guru Granth Sahib, however they forget that Kabir was an Apostate.

The battles that were fought between Hindus and Muslims were mainly between the Rajputs and Muslims, there were other groups, but the stiffest resistance was given by the Rajputs especially the Rajputs of Mewar who never got conquered. Even when the Sikhs became militarised in 1699 by the last of their Gurus, Guru Gobind Rai, he chose to instill the martial traditions of the Rajputs into the Sikhs as he has written in his autobiography Bachitra Natak, and his adoption with the name Singh (he could have chosen Khan, but he didn't). The Sikhs performed miserably and it wasn't until Guru Gobind Singh (formerly Rai) took the aid of a Rajput named Laxman Singh (ascetic name Madho Das) to come lead the Sikhs against Islam. Laxman Singh came to be know as Banda Bir Bairagi (the Brave Man who was an Asetic). He got Rajputs from the Shivalik hills to join the Sikhs and thus began the victories agianst Islam in Punjab and the establishment of the first Sikh kingdom, all done by a Hindu Rajput. The takht Akalis (blue turbanned Sikhs, today's Akhalistanis) betryed him because they became jealous with his success and they betrayed him to the Muslims. The Muslims captured him with his 200 Rajput soldiers and all chose death instead of conversion, and what a gruesome death it was.

I have to disagree with you further because I come from a Rajput family and I have Sikh cousins, but I see more hatred for Islam among Rajputs (traditionally raised) than I do among the Sikhs of the West. The Sikhs have even begun to change their history to make it seem that the Hindus were the cause of their misery. They have even claimed that Sikh revolutionaries during the time of the British had muslim names ie Udham Singh aka Ram Mohammad Singh Azad, this too at a time when identifying with muslims was very looked down upon.

Shivaji and his Maratthas, the Ranas of Nepal and their Gurkhas, the Rajputs of Mewar, the Chauhans of Chamba, Chatrasal and his Rajputs of Bundlekhand, the warriors of Assam, the Gonds, the Bhils, the Dogra Rajputs, the Hindu Jats...the list goes on and each of these fighters strikes more terror into the heart of Muslims than the Sikhs do especially since the Akhalistan movement came into being because muslims see Sikhs as people they can use against their own cousins (Sikh and Hindus being cousins, at least they were at one time).

Thus there are now two camps in the Sikhs, the brave ones who are loyal to their Hindu brethren and the others who now claim to be closer to the Muslims, Muslims that were responsible for more Sikh deaths.

Making a claim as you did no doubt shows respect to the Sikhs, but be careful at how far the claim goes, even Musharaff said a while back, there are two reasons why Pakistan will never win against India: the Rajputs and the Gurkhas.

Cheers,

Ayo Gorkhali. Posted by: Gorkhali [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 15, 2007 4:28 AM

"

Comment came up in a Google search for Sikh Rajputs, posting it here for whatever its worth, may give some leads for research.

Atulsnischal (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! But you should probably know more about reliable sources while editing on Wikipedia. I don't, in any way, see your above posted version to be reliable or verifiable. My two cents. Mspraveen (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
To add further, Wikipedia is neither a place for original research nor your points of view. Hope this helps you in your future contributions. Mspraveen (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I have noticed quite an extensive change to the introduction in recent times. It is in my view unnecessarily laudatory of the Singhs but perhaps more accurately reflects the primary association this surname has to the rajputs than was the case in earlier entries which appeared to give primary connection with Sikhs. To that extent it is an improvement but in the laudatory ascpects perhaps a little unseemly - I would leave that to brahmins.

In its laudatory mode however, the recent changes appear to damn with faint praise. Singhs were more than just mere warriors in Indian society. They were the aristocrats of India. At their highest level they were Kings, Queens, princes and princesses and at lower levels the Thakurs, local lords and chieftans. They also made up the army. They gave protection to those around them and those around them paid homage to thier local lords etc - including the brahmins who like to (without substance) claim highest status.

To describe Singhs as warriors only is to say that Caesers, Knights, Lords, Kings etc of Europe,that the Duke of Wellinton himself were just soldiers (which they were at one level). Absurd.

So whilst I would prefer to see dispassionate facts over laudatory entries on Wikipaedia, whilst we are being laudatory one should strive to be accurate in that department also.

I cant wait for the fallout. Rajputana (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I also note the advice from mspraveen on the need for reliability, verifiability. Ok 'ere's me tuppeny worth. How is that achieved on topics such as this where no reliable source exists for custom and practice? I have seen people quote bits out of OED or even worse, mad-hatter online American dictionaries, to pass the test. The problem is that so long as these issues are considered to be fodder for this site, people with myriad competing POVs and agenda will write all manner of things. This remains the case with the Singh entry and many other Indian related entries. Just go and look at the nonsense being written by brahmins about themselves. One persons verifiable fact appears to be another's POV.Rajputana (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagged[edit]

I have taken the liberty to add tags relating to OR and POV plus citation tags for want of proper sourcing. It is hugely vague and much of it is original research. It needs proper sourcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.161.103 (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverted unconstructive edits and over-tagging, just because one doset like the subject one cant set to tear it down. Original unconstructive edits also carried POV remarks/Unconstructive remarks:- "This article is a BIG JOKE", editors are kindley requested to help build the article and contribute constructively not set to destroy it as per their whims and fancies and big egos.

Thanks 99.235.98.169 (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

GurkhaBoy please do not vandalize this article as per your whims and fancies[edit]

I have noticed you dont like caste system/religion/indian customs etc. or have not much knowledge of same and have again started editing this article as per your whims and fancies, this article gives an accurate description of the name Singh as per centuries old Indian customs and caste system. Kindly do not vandalize this article.

Also Gurkha people of Nepal use the name Singh because they are of the Hindu warrior caste kshtriya for your knowledge.

Please do not censor the article as it is an accurate description of the name Singh.

mrigthrishna (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As per your comments on Hindu Punjabi Rajputs. There is a huge population of Hindu Rajputs in Punjab, they are Punjabi people, they eat Punjabi food, the speak Punjabi language and they wear Punjabi clothes and celebrate Punjabi festivals but they are not Sikh. These are Hindu Punjabis, their mother tongue is Punjabi language, this huge population of Punjabi Hindu Rajputs use Singh as their middle or last name but these Punjabi Rajputs are not Sikh. So in Punjab a large part of the population which is Hindu Punjabi Rajputs, these Hindus living in Punjab also use the name Singh, just because they are living in Punjab or are of Punjabi culture and decent and use Singh in their name dosent mean they are Sikh.

ALL the Punjabi Singhs living in Punjab and those Singhs of Punjabi decent worldwide ARE NOT Sikh, a huge portion of them are Punjabi Hindu Rajputs from Punjab who also ALSO use Singh in their name. It is too easy to think that all Punjabi Singhs are Sikhs but it is not true.

On the other hand there are also a large part or Punjabi Hindu Rajputs who had converted to Sikhism to raise the army of Khalsa warriors on the call of Guru Gobindh Singh ji. But these are today Sikh.

If you have no idea about Indian History, culture and customs you should kindly not edit these articles, please stick to subjects you have studied about and have knowledge about. Kindly do not vandalize and claim everything to be too religious and POV. Thanks

mrigthrishna (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


My whims and fancies? Give me a break. I cannot believe you who has discussed articles with me in the past simply jump to the conclusion that I am vandalising the article when in fact I am trying to fix it. I have no idea what your credentials are but to assume I know nothing about Sikhs, Rajputs and Punjabis is a very foolish assumption considering my background, not only from my family, but also my credentials in South Asian Studies.

I think you do not have an idea about Indian history, not me. Unlike yourself my family has had a huge impact on Punjab and my cousin the present Maharaja of Nabha recently gave the SGPC some of Gurur Gobind Singh's artifacts. Something we are very much interlinked with in my family.

Just because I chose the name GURKHABOY or GORKHALI do not assume I not aware of what goes on in Punjab. And to assume as such is very stupid on your part.

Gorkhali (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


And furthermore, not al the Punjabi Rajputs became Sikhs, and to place them in a "special category" is foolish because a Rajput is a Rajput no matter where they go. They use Singh in their middle name because they were the original bearers of this name.

And don't try to tell me about Rajput practices or Sikh practices since both sections are very intertwined in my family. Most of the people you read about in Indian history are my family members, cousins, grandfathers and so on.

However, to assume that Singh signifies royalty is wrong, because it does not.

I guess you know nothing about Rajputs since you are not one. So kindly allow someone who belongs to the Rajput houses to speak on this matter.

Gorkhali (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Well i'm from the ancient Ghorewaha Rajputs of Punjab and we have been using "Singh" for as long as our history can date and only a few Rajput clans converted to Sikhisim - like the Mhinas, the Mehtos and maybe another one or two. Guru Gobind Singh also assumed the title of Singh, he was Rai earlier. The Kutlehar Raja who is a Rajput gave shelter to the Guru in his forests and so did our family who were rulling Machiwara at that time. If you visit this link you can see how the Mewar Rulers or Maharanas have always used "Singh" since ancient times - link provided below Tikka Sangram Singh (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.eternalmewar.in/User/Research/Ancestry/Ancestry_02.aspx . Tikka Sangram Singh (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rajput I am by the way (Bhati) and the royalty aspect was added by user "Rajputana", see "recent edits" section immidiately above on talk page where this user gives his argument about adding it.

You are doing nothing but censoring this article which is overall an accurate picture of the name/title singh. You are in your zeal to make everything neutral removing the actual history and usage of Singh from the article and getting personal on the subject calling singhs brothers and cousins etc which they are of many like myne too for that matter both Rajputs and Sikhs by the way.

You guys are the ones fighting on and on over this article and getting personal. Singh is used as per the traditional caste system in Rajputs and kshtriyas, the warrior caste originally and then by Sikhs, why are you trying to censor all true facts..... I wont be fighting over this with you anymore, you could consult elders in your community before erasing their history and also help build this article with proper references if you have access, in the years to come.

Do not just censor this article to one line = Singh is a name of Rajputs and Sikhs. .... just because you feel it is neutral.

I am reverting your edit and after this I will not argue on this matter.

mrigthrishna (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

User "Rajputana" reviewed the article and found it to be ok, he has reviewed and added his comments in the section "recent edits" above on talk page of Singh, you could collaborate with him & others in finding references to facts which are common knowledge in Rajput and Sikh communities (in the elders till last generation at least). Please do not censor the article is my appeal, it is an accurate picture over all of the usage of Singh.

Thanks

mrigthrishna (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


I really have no idea where you are coming from, you make no sense and it seems you are neurotic at times, and honestly at the way you have acted it really doesn't matter anymore.

I am cleaning up the article, and instead you immediately accuse me of Vandalism and in case you had no idea I had in the past improved this article and brought it to light the importance of Rajputs with the name Singh. However I will not allow for this article to become a piece of POVs and assumptions and religious zeal. And I highly doubt your knowledge Rajputs since you have no clue about Rajput practices across North India yet are attempting to hijack articles for your POV, and if someone doesn't agree with you you scream "Vandalism".

I am glad you will not bother arguing anymore and allow for this article to be improved.

And please do not contact me on my user page again asking for help on any article.

Gorkhali (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Singh surname unites Indian regions, dont divide[edit]

For anybody who live in India, especially inthe North, it is almost impossible not to come across a person with the surname "Singh" once a day. I AM a SIKH, but I find this pathetic effort at deleting Rajput links to the Singh surname most repulsive. For every Indian, it should be our proud duty to stand together as a nation, seeing surnames as a uniting factor across several religions and regions, rather than dividing ourselves and claiming exclusivity to common threads of history. Let sanity prevail. Rajput 'Singhs' are more in number in India than Sikh 'Singhs' can ever be. We have had a Rajput PM in VP Singh, so many ministers like Jaswant Singh.... the whole debate reeks of so much ignorance that it seems pathetic to even argue it in front of ignorant people... still kudos to all the people in Wikipedia who have the patience to argue with ignorant and narrow-minded people with a pipeline vision of history. Let Sanity prevailKulveer (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WELL SAID, Kulveer! Gorkhali, whatever your rajput credentials maybe, I too must say that I find some of your positions confusing. If it is your work in the name of neutrality to remove the primary association of the surname with Rajputs, Kshatriya and Sikhs then that is very disappoiting. Whatever practice exists by other groups adopting the surname that practice is by far an abberation and has done NOTHING to diminsh the overwhelming association of this name with Rajputs, Kshatriya and Sikhs. ANd why on earth do you disagree with the aristocratic pedigree of this surname - hsitory speaks vloumes lad! If you disagree you are misguided; But I could not be bothered bickering with you like a bunch of brahmins or banias would. Give it a rest mate.Rajputana (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry have to say this too - Rajput = son of the Raja (who would usually be the eldest amongst the puts). Lion = animal associated with royalty in many parts of the world sharing an Aryan lineage. Rajput/kshatriyas/Sikhs produced most of Indias kings and the remainder generally became the warriors. Oh I could go on.Rajputana (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Rajputana, Relax, relax and relax, if you had seen the original article it was going on and on and on about Sikhism and its religious practices and had nothing to do with the name Singh. What these boys are harping on is trying to go on and on about what they think while forgetting the original article. Perhaps you forget that it was my editing that brought the Rajput aspect to the article in the first place along with the etymology. Then when I came back I saw that it was becoming someone's rant and raving about relgious this and that. Your buddy Kulveer tried to put up some tuff which didn't hold because I checked up on it in other artcles and it didn't hold so I removed it, simple as that. I have no problem bringing in all the information together, but before you wonder what my position may be perhaps you should see how he article had become nothing more than a bunch of gibberish of someone blowing of their steam. I removed all the BS and crap that has nothing to do with the article about "SINGH" and now that we have a cleaner skeleton to work with, perhaps we can build up a proper article from here. Rajputs produced most of the Kings of India, among the Sikhs there was Maharaja Ranjit Singh and the four Phulkian States, Patiala, Nabha, Faridkot and Jind, and finally the state of Kapurthala.

When you say "Whatever your Rajput credentials may be" you should understand that unlike the general public which makes assumptions or tries to reason who did what and why, most of those chaps you guys discuss whether Rajput or Sikh turn out to either be a part of my family or close family friends.

Kulveer assumes others are ignorant without realising that perhaps there is a reason to try and keep a certain standard on making an article and perhaps trying to stay on topic. He tried to add "Sen" as being a "Singh" and I removed it because the Sen article stated otherwise. If all of you want to put your assumptions on the article, then go ahead, I understand that my attempt to try and clean up the article, make it balanced and try to present the fact that the name belonged to Rajputs first has gone on deaf ears.

I tried to do my best to clean up the article but if you feel that you wish to make it into a joke like it was before I cleaned it up, then by all means go ahead, make the article a rant and rave on everything under the sun to all of your heart's content.

Cheers Gorkhali (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the surname Singh is assigned to only those Sikhs who are members of the Khalsa. Therefore, not all Sikhs possess last names of Singh and Kaur. In fact, I myself know Sikhs who aren't members of the Khalsa and therefore do not have a Singh last name. However, not being Sikh myself, I'm reluctant to update the article and will therefore check further before doing so. --Adityan 04:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Nope that's wrong. My father is not a baptised Sikh and his surname is Singh. Some people won't use Singh at all, some people have it as a middle name, some as their last. There are plenty of baptised Sikhs who still have a family name and use Singh as their middle name. 62.252.224.17 01:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is wrong, all sikhs have a singh in their name, its up to the individual to decide if they want to put it in their name or not, Sikhism is pretty flexiable religion - Ravinder Singh

This is my first time doing this, but why do people keep editing the part where Singh was originally a Rajput surname and is still commonly used by Hindus?? Everytime I add that in, the entry changes and says "Singh is mainly used by Sikhs"! There are million of Hindus that use the last name Singh. It's not an alien concept, people. Why are Hindu Singhs and Rajputs being neglected in this entry, while there is so much information on Sikhs? Why is there also a khanda sign on the top of the page, as if it's giving the impression that Singh is only a Sikh concept? It also says that Singh is written as Sinh in Hindi. I don't think that's right. Hindi-speaking people write their name as "Singh."

Just because I eat porridge every day does not mean that I am an authority on the mighty oat - och aye the noo! Ditto your claimed august connections. Further, aforesaid connections are irrelevant in the discussion of public deeds or public persons. I know of the problems with the original entries (I was in the trenches with you mate. Hav you forgotten?) but I think it would be fair to say that element has long gone. What apepars to be happening now is an attempt to correctly wrtie what the Singh name is about but the accusation against you by Kulveer (who you refer to disrespectfully as, using hte ghastly Amercian sobriquet, my buddy) is that you have stripped the entry of the essence of the Singh name by trying to be "nuetral". And I think that may have some legs. And I am all for respcting all me fellow Singhs even when I am battling them. Bajrang Bali Ki Jai - although as an Arya Samaji I have some disquiet about a monkey god. Rajputana (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to make my position clear. I am a SIKH. I have written in favour of content that covers ALL communities using the Singh surname, including Sikhs, Rajputs and others. I am repulsed by Sikhs who have been deleting the Rajput sections of the page in a misguided attempt to hijack the Singh surname. I think that such Sikhs have a pipeline vision of history. I am in favour of a more inclusive article on the 'Singh' surname. Chill people, we need to unite our vision and honour the differences. By the way, I agree that Rajputs have been historically associated with the Singh Surname, well before the advent of Sikhism in its present form Kulveer (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sinhalese?[edit]

Shouldn't the term be at least mentioned as being related, at least in the Etymology section? Variants include "Singalese" and "Sinhala" --Maurice45 (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

forget it, I'm adding it now. No need to reply --Maurice45 (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahirs[edit]

Ahir kings of nepal precedes Rajput era, even Gupta age. Since a large number of Ahir kings have used this name, you cannot say they are second to anyone in using it. Also, there was a abhira king Rudrasinh mentioned in Dhruvaswamini, who fought against Ramagupta, the Gupta emperor and defeated him. All occurences are much before even the name Rajput was coined. Ikon No-Blast 16:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Utcursch claims [5], the ref does not even mention Ahir. well the ref in online form is Here, [6], which does not even mention singh, sinh or related word. Should this ref be used in this article to justify Rajput claim??? Ikon No-Blast 17:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, remove the Rajput claim as well. The ref added by you doesn't mention that Ahirs started using Singh as a surname first. They just mention Ksatrap Rudrasimha. utcursch | talk 20:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure, you understand the term surname. Stop trolling here and other pages. Take this as warning. Ikon No-Blast 20:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Please learn to assume good faith and be civil. Also, have a look at WP:NPA before calling others a troll. Every single sentence added by me has a valid reliable source. utcursch | talk 20:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
And instead of blindly reverting, please read the content. The reference added by doesn't support the assertion "Singh was first used as a surname by Ahir kings". It just supports the content I've added later. Also, the new ref added by me supports the assertion that the "the earliest examples of names ending with "Simha" are to be found with the names of the two sons of the great Satrapa rurler Rudraraman". Don't assume you're in a battlefield -- think with a cool head, and please read the content before undoing others' edits. utcursch | talk 21:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Your ref talks about 2nd century, whereas, rudrasimha's re is of 1st century. Ikon No-Blast 21:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope you realize that "180 AD" is 2nd century. Just like the previous century (19xx) was 20th century, and the current century is 21st century. And your ref doesn't mention that Rudrasimha was an Ahir -- it clearly says that he was a Ksatrapa. utcursch | talk 21:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Good point utcursh, I really appreciate that. Infact, Kshtrapa/Mahaksatrapa origin itself starts with Abhira. Puranas mentions them as Paramount sovereign who ruled under Satvahanas as kshatrapa. In fact word kshtriya is derivative of kshtrapa itself, it was not found earlier. Why you are hell bent on a single point ref. you should also study ahir kings. Nobody is certain when they actually started ruling, it ended before 8th century AD. regarding Rudrasimha being Ahir, I can give you alternative ref. Till then I can wait. However, then I will rv again. Ikon No-Blast 21:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice to see that we're on talking terms now. I'm neither a Rajput, nor a Yadav. So, I'm not trying to prove anything here. I just want this article to be accurate. Please do not revert my edits, until you find a reference that supports your claim directly (i.e. without any synthesis or original research). utcursch | talk 21:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)