Talk:Pratihara dynasty

---

Controversy: Were the Pratiharas "Gujjars" or "Rajputs"?

The old name of Rajasthan was "Gurjaratra" (which meant "the country ruled or protected by the Gujjars"), it was also known as "Gurjara Desa" and "Gurjara Mandala", and while not officially but in everyday language it was also called "Gurjara" for a short form. The obvious meanings of the terms Gurjaratra, Gurjara Desa, and Gurjara Mandala, point to the fact that the word "Gurjara" was used for a people, and the words "Tra" (protection), "Desa" (country), and "Mandala" (province) were used for their "land" or "kingdom" (for example, the English equivalent would be, "Gurjarland").

So the question arises, who were the "Gurjaras"? Now leaving aside the various theories on their origin, all historians agree -there is essentially a consensus among historians over this- that the ancient "Gurjaras" and the modern day "Gujjars" are one and the same people. So it would be accurate to say that the old Rajasthan was a "Gujjar Kingdom".

The same Gurjaras who established a kingdom in ancient Rajasthan and Gujarat, established another kingdom in Punjab and also named it Gurjaratra. The modern day remnants of that kingdom can still be seen in the places named "Gujrat" (which means "land protected by Gujjars"), "Gujranwala" (which means "the city of Gujjars"), and "Gujar Khan" (named after a Gujar king). Again, the names Gujrat, Gujranwala and Gujar Khan, make it amply clear that the word Gujjar is used to refer to a people, and it proves that "Gurjara" being the same word as "Gujjar" was also used to refer to a people. Furthermore, only the Gujjars call themselves Gujjar in Gujrat, Gujranwala, or Gujar Khan, all the other tribes call themselves with their own tribal names i.e. Jatt, Malik, etc. and when referring to their city of origin all including the Gujjars would call themselves Gujrati, Gujranwali, or Gujar Khani.

All the historic evidences - Rajor inscription, Pampa, Arab records, Rashtrakutta records- also point to the fact that the word Gurjara was used to refer to a "people", and not "land".

-What is the evidence that Pratiharas were Rajputs?-

The word Rajput is not even mentioned anywhere until the Mughal era. Which means Rajputs came to existence 400 years after the fall of the Gurjara Pratihara empire! Gujjars are the predecessors of the Rajputs, and hence, it is only the Gujjars who are concerned with the identity of the Gurjara Pratiharas not the Rajputs, as the Rajputs didn't even exist back then. It's quite surprising to see the Rajputs infer that Gurjara Pratihara empire was a "Rajput" dynasty!

This is really a straight forward matter, but only if you don't let your pride hinder your thinking capabilities.

--Axtramedium (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Pratihara

Hi, I have changed word parihar with Pratihara, as there is no evidence in The Imperial Gazetteer of India as well The Digital South Asia Library-Imperial gazetteer of India. There is only Gurjara Pratihara Dynasty belongs to Gurjara People. RebelRobin (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Hi, I've corrected some grammatical errors and cleaned up the language a bit. Hope no one minds.

Thanks, T Servaia 14:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reg: Pratiharas of modern times

This article should keep it's scope to Pratihara kingdom, and should not be adding sections about new pratihara's. It goes against the purpose of this article. 86.96.226.88 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Gurjara Pratihara

Hii go through the whole matter written in the book Here.It seems that the writer have summed up all views from a number of historians regarding Gurjara pratihara's origin.Regards Chhora (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Much better source. Thanks! utcursch | talk 17:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(Late comment) Unfortunately, this description doesn't settle the issue at all. There is no doubt that the Mandor/Bhinmal line and the Broach line of kings were Gurjaras. Their lands were clearly called "Jurz" by the Arabs. The Imperial Pratiharas originating in Ujjain were rarely called Gurjaras. They were on occasion called Gurjaresas or Gurjarendras (meaning lords of Gurjaras), which doesn't necessarily imply that they were Gurjaras themselves. Here is a full-blown coverage of the issue. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Title of the article

I undid the undiscussed move of the article from "Gurjara-Pratihara" to "Pratihar Rajputs". This article is about the empire -- not about the modern ethnic/social group (Parihars) claiming descent from the Imperial Pratiharas. The dynasty certainly did not use the self-designation "Parihar Rajputs" -- Google Books returns 0 results for Pratihar Rajput, 102 for Parihar Rajput, and 739 results for Gurjara-Pratiharas (ignoring hundreds of results for alternative spellings like "Gurjar-Pratiharas" etc.). At best, this can be moved to "Pratiharas" or "Pratihara dynasty" via a requested move. utcursch | talk 04:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Gurjara-Pratihara actually does mean Pratiharas of Gurjara desa or Gujrat. Sometime ago i was watching a programme on sky tv, on a Gujrati channel. The programme was called "Gurjar Ras". I think it means "Gujrat news". It was giving news about Gujrat state. Gurjar is actually short for Gujrat or Gurjara desa.There is district called Gojra in Pakistan. It means land of Gojars or Gujjars. But, not everyone living in Gojra belongs to Gujjar caste. These are just places named after some castes or people. Rajasthan was called Rajputana, but not everyone living in Rajputana was Rajput. The same goes for Gurjara Brahmins which means Brahmins of Gurjara desa or Gujrat. Hope that helps. Desimann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.121.200.192 (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Gurjara pratihara doesn't mean Pratihara of Gurjardesh but it means Pratihara of Gurjara people.This can be confirmed by the careful observation of razor inscription.The term Gurjar is used in 4th line again where it is used for racial purpose.Moreover Rastrakutta records also confirm that they were Gurjars by caste e.g. Bagmura plate of indra 111 use the term Roaring Gurjara.Obviously here Gurjara denotes clan not country.Arab writers also confirm that praiharas were imperial Gurjars.Parihar are still a clan among Gurjars.

Vist this link to know that they were no doubt Gurjars. regards Mkrestin (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sir, on page 278 it says that "the Cedi king defeated kings of Vangala, Kasmira and Gurjara". So, the word Gurjara does stand for Gujrat as a place or country and not as a caste. When using religion and caste or clan together, religion comes first and then caste or clan. For example,muslim rajput, muslim jat, muslim gujar. When using caste and clan together, clan or tribe comes first and then caste. For example, Bhati rajput,chauhan rajput,janjua rajput, Gorsi gujar ,kalas gujar,khatana gujar, Gondal jat, sidhu jat, maan jat. When using caste or clan belonging to a country, region or area then country , region and area comes first and then the caste or tribe. For example, Punjabi rajput , Sindhi rajput, rajasthani rajput, Majhil jat, Doaba jat, Punjabi jat , Sindhi jat, Punjabi gujar, Rajasthani gujar, Kashmiri gujar. So, Gurjara Pratihara means Gujrati Pratihara or Pratiharas of Gujrat. Sir i hope you do agree that there is a place called Gujrat or Gurjra desa. Desimann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.121.200.192 (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me after reading the comments on this page that there is quite a lot of misunderstanding about the word Gujjar. Actually this is name of a race that came to India from Gorgia of present Russia. They came around first century AD and mingled in existing Indian communities. They are mentioned here as Pratihara, I did not get any clue to the meaning of that epithet. By my study the meaning is doorkeeper. In "Advanced History of India-Mujumdar and others", on page 169 some mention is made and that I wish to put here as is given.

About the middle of 8th century A.D. certain Gurjar Chiefs are represented as serving 
a Rashtrakut monarch as Pratihara (doorkeeper) at a sacrifice performed at Ujjain. 
The designation probably originated in this way, though the later tradition connects
it with Lakshman, brother of Rama, 
who guarded the doors of the later during the years of his exile. And so the epithet 
Pratihara, real meanig by dictionary is attendant. 

I feel this etymology of this epithet should be introduced in the article at its introduction part. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is looking clearly that some persons are trying to prove ' Pratihars ' as ' Gujjar ' on any cost . No doubt , V. Smith and some historians attached ' Pratihar ' with ' Gujjars ' who were of foreign origin without any doubt . V. Smith and other imperialist historian want to hunt two birds by one arrow -- first , provide a historical moral base for ' British rule ' and second to sow the seeds of division among Indian communities . Unfortunately , some Indian historian followed them blindly and Gujjars have made this as a question of their ' cast pride ' . They present ' Rajaur inscription ' and ' Jujra and Gurjar ' title as a proof in the favor of their claim . But they forget three basic facts --- 1-- There were three dynasties on the name of Gurjar - Pratiharas . First and oldest was of HARISHCHADRA Pratihar who was a Brahmin and established his kingdom at Bhillmal [Jodhpur] 550 a.d. approx . [ Ghatiyal inscription by SUGHCHHARAAJ ' the descender of Harischchandra brahmin pratihar dynasty ] Second was of DADDA 1 of Nandi puri ,who was present in the 575 a.d . Due to the time similarity of son of Harishchandra , R.C. Majumdaar and other expressed a possibility that this DADDA 1 was the son of Harishchandra . Though it is totally wrong , but if we accept this as a fact for one moment , then how we can declare Dadda as a Gujjar king or why Dadda himself and Huentsang declared Dadda as a Gurjar king ? Truth is that , Dadda 1 was gurjar king which had neither any relation with Harishchandra's Brahmin Pratihar dynasty nor with later Kshtriya Pratihar of Avanti .[ became famous as 36 kuli {Raj tarngini } and then ' Rajputs ]. Third dynasty was established by Naag Bhatt 1 [ 725 a.d. -- 750 a.d. ] who not only stopped Arabian invasion but uprooted ' Dadda's descender Jayabhatt 4 ' from NANDIPURI and established ' Bhatravaddha Chauhan ' on the place of Jayabhatta gujjar . If Naagbhatta were a gurjar , he would not have been displaced the Jayabhatta because ' Feudal order ' was totally based on ' Brotherhood or family members ' . 2--- Pratihar of Avanti or Ujjain never said in any OWN inscription like Gwalior inscription that they were Gurjars . Courtier poet of Mahendrapaal , ' Raaj Shekhara ' also never said that Pratihaar were Gujjars . These were Rashtrakuta and Arabians who used to call them Gurjara or Jujra because till that time Pratiharas had captured the ' GURJARATRA ' and it had become the center of power and shelter place till the permanent capturing of KANNAUJ . We should remember that there is a historical tradition to call casts and communities on the basis of places such as Gaud Brahmins and Gaud Kshtriyas on the name of GAUD [ Bengal ] , Gurjar Brahmins [ Brahmins of Gurjar desh ] etc. 3-- Where the question of Rajaur inscription is , we should remember that the meaning of language of this inscription was controversial and any one can check this with the help of NIRUKTA . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaudheya (talk • contribs) 06:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

All views regarding the origin of the dynasty including their being Gurjar or not, has been included with references.Views of scholars such as VA smith, RC Majumdar that the dynasty had Gurjar origin had been mentioned with the counter views of Dasrath Sharma.On wiki, various aspect/theories are covered with reliable sources, not the view of editor's like.Mkrestin (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sir Dashrath Sharma was not only one historian who rose the question of 'gurjar origin 'of Pratiharas . R.C.Majumdar himself was not definite about this . [ ref. Shrenya Yug '-- translation of Classical age ] . Beside this Pro. Bhandarkar also didn't accept the explanation of ' Gurjar pratiharanvaya of Rajor inscription . Beside this you should check the list of descenders of Harishchandra Dynasty of Jodhpur by GHATIYAL inscription .[ ref. -- Epigraphia indica by R.C.Majumdar vol. 18 pp 87 ff ] . Beside this you says that Harish chandra was the 'samant 'of Rashtrkutas while Harischandra's time was just after the decline of Gupt empire [ approx 550 a.d. approx -- according to R.C.Majumdaar ] and Rashtrakutas gained the power in initial of 8th century a.d. . So chronology of Pratihar kings is also incorrect .Please sir before conclusion , first reread carefully the basic inscriptions and views of other historians , specially about these three dynasties whose interlinking couldn't be proven . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaudheya (talk • contribs) 16:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC) yaudheya (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Yaudheya Ji!! On what basis are you claiming Harichandra line of Pratiharas as Brahmin.On page 222 of the book "History of Kannauj: To the Moslem Conquest" by Tripathi, it is clearly given that Harichandra was surnamed Rohilladdhi, which is very clearly a Ror Kshatriya signature. Again, one of the last surviving Pratiharas, who finds mention time and again in "Alha Khand" written by the Chandela bard, Mahal Si of Mahoba (forced later to shift to Uriyal fort by Parimal), is clearly defined as a Ror Kshatriya again by historian Dr. Raj Pal Singh. So, on what basis are you claiming that Harichandra was Brahmin?? Can you quote a single Brahmin surname from anywhere in India, which sound like Rohilladdhi or Rohadaddhi? Rorkadian (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Daddas

There is no connection shown between Dadda I-II-III and the Partiharas. I wonder why they are listed here at all. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have now removed them from template (of Gurjara-Pratihara kings). - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

These people were Rajputs

Before (yet again) changing the article to say that the Gurjara-Pratiharas were Gurjar, please read the cited sources. They are reliable and they make it clear that the people were in fact Rajput. Don't like it? Find some reliable sources that say otherwise and we can consider showing the alternate opinion, as per WP:NPOV. What you cannot do is base things on your own understanding. Many words have several meanings, and Gurjara is one of them. - Sitush (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Gurjara originally referred to an ethnic group, lending their name to the region called Gurjaradesa/Gurjaratra/al-Jurz, whose kings and forces were then referred to as "Gurjaras" by the rival kingdoms. Whether the Pratiharas were ethnic Gurjaras or not is still debated by the scholars. However, what is not in doubt is that they are classified under Rajputs, purely by virtue of the fact that they claimed a solar lineage. I am not sure why there is any controversy about it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hang around Rajput articles for long enough and you will see that there is an ongoing, long-term battle whereby people presumably from the Gurjar community attempt to usurp academic sources etc. There are dozens of indefinitely semi-protected articles because of this problem. - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the Gurjaras need their claim to fame too. I admit the article is one-sided. I will take care of it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Update on the Gurjara-Pratihara article

(Copied from User talk:Kautilya3)

Hi Kautilya, thanks for informing me about this. I have now provided three reliable references for my edit, I hope the matter is clear now. I would like to add that the name "Gurjara" in the compound Gurjara-Pratihara has the same meaning as "Gujjar", but evidently a lot of people, perhaps including you, dont realize this apparent connection; which is the whole reason I made this edit. Gurjara and Gujjar are the same words, and both are used for a people not a place. --Axtramedium (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Axtramedium: Discussions on the subject of articles are best kept on the article pages. So I copied your message here.

I will take a look at your sources. However, you should note that social phenomena are not like mathematics. So you can't say that "Gujjar" means the same as "Gurjara". So we can use them interchangeably. Such edits constitute synthesis which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please check that page for more information. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the edit. Given the disputed Gujjar/Rajput situation, it is highly inappropriate - per WP:NPOV - to make an overarching statement that they were definitely Gujjar. I'm not even sure that the lengthy quotations provided make that assertion: they seem to me to be pretty ambiguous about the context in which they are using the word.

Perhaps the information can be included somewhere in the body of the article but we need first to be absolutely clear about what those sources are saying. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush:I would like to ask you to point out what was "ambiguous" about those references, have you read them? As far as I know, all of them are clearly stating that Pratiharas were Gurjaras. Now as far as the word Gurjara goes, there is already a consensus among all historians that Gurjar and Gujjar are one and same people.--Axtramedium (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

already a consensus among all historians that Gurjar and Gujjar are one and same people Really? And is there also consensus that Gurjar and Gurjara are the same? Even one of your own sources said that there have been disputes, so the unequivocal assertion is inappropriate. Have you read WP:NPOV? - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I have already made a post on this controversy, if you want to talk about it, you are more than welcome to present your point of view. I have explained this matter in detail in that post. I believe its the first post on this page, hard to miss. Thanks!--Axtramedium (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR, and note that by convention you post at the top of this page was misplaced. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, so cut me some slack, lol. Regarding my post, I can provide references from reliable sources, this is not my original research. These are well established facts.

I dont know I thought the newest posts go at the top, should I copy it to the bottom? --Axtramedium (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No need to move it as far as I am concerned but the placement is why I didn't see it. WP:TPG provides some useful information about using talk page, although you're probably getting swamped by all these references to policies and guidelines.

We do indeed need references from reliable sources but in this instance I doubt it will make any difference. We already know that there are various spellings and that sources have come to different conclusions, so there is no way we can assert that one particular version is correct. That is why I suggested you read our approach to neutrality as explained at WP:NPOV. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Axtramedium: There are several issues here:

1. The so-called "Gurjara-Pratiharas" never called themselves by that name. They only used the term "Pratihara." Some scholars believe they were Gurjaras and some doin't. The "Origins" section of the article already covers this debate.
2. We have no clear idea what the term "Gurjara" meant in 800 AD. It could have been an ethnic group, or a country, or a generic term for the people of a country. There are enough scholars that believe in each of these ideas and multiple ones as well.
3. Assuming it was an ethnic group, we have no clear information about the descent of the present day "Gujjars" from that tribe. Things do change over time. Societies are not static. So even assuming that the Gurjara-Pratiharas were ethnic Gurjaras, it is still not proper to call them "Gujjars."

The sources you have added don't say anything new. The issues are still unsettled and perhaps they will alwaya remain unsettled. WP:NPOV says that we should cover all the scholarly views, but we can't present anything as fact unless there is clear scholarly consensus. In the case of Gurjara-Pratiharas, there is no scholarly consensus on their origin and ethnicity. I hope that is clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

See the page Nagabhata I, which documents my research into the issue of origin. I haven't yet updated the present page with the information because I haven't yet checked the sources mentioned here. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I am going to answer your points one by one, so the readers can clearly understand this side of the argument.

1. There is plenty of reason to believe that imperial Pratiharas were a Gurjara clan, the lack of Pratihara records saying so doesnt mean "they never called themselves by that name". It just means there have been none discovered. However, the contemporary records of the Arabs, Palas, and Rashtrakutas which call Pratiharas as Gurjaras have already been discovered, and cannot be ignored. The Rajor inscription and the writings of the Kannada poet Pampa give further clarification on this. Together all these evidences give enough reason that the so-called "Gurjara-Pratiharas" were in fact "Gurjara-Pratiharas".
2. The term "Gurjaratra" (country ruled or protected by the Gurjaras), would be meaningless if the term "Gurjara" didn't stand for a people. The historical places such as Gujrat, Gujranwala (city of Gujjars) and Gujar Khan (Gujar king), were named after the Gujjar tribe is accepted on all hands. The presence of a Gujjar "tribe" in Afghanistan and Pakistan is tantamount evidence that Gurjaras were first and foremost an ethnic people who named several places after them in ancient times.
3. Almost all historians agree that Gujjar is merely a modern form of the word Gurjar or Gurjara, and that Gujjars are the modern representatives of the ancient Gurjaras. Societies do evolve overtime, but that doesn't mean a Greek is not a descendant of the ancient Greeks, or that Greeks can’t claim their ancient history as their own. Call them Gurjara, Gurjar, Gujjar, or Gojjar, it's just different transitions in the history of a same people. The Gujjars, just like all the other modern descendants of an ancient people, have every right in this world to call Gurjara history as Gujjar history.

Its not my concern what some writers, who were ignorant of the true facts, have written about the Gurjaras. My concern is the true and logical representation of the facts. I agree with Wikipedia's policy that every side deserves the right to show its argument. However, it doesn't mean that we have to confuse the reader to the extent that he/she can't even differentiate between the different arguments. Conflicting arguments need to be clearly differentiated in an orderly fashion so the reader can easily identify and understand the different opinions or arguments, and make their own mind.

I will soon make a post listing all the issues that i have with this article. We have a lot of "one liner" arguments without any real explanation to what they mean in this article, there needs to be clear explanations for the readers. I hope I am making myself clear here. Cheers! Axtramedium (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are able to improve the article, nobody will have an objection. But I am afraid you made a bad start and your argumentation above doesn't give us a great deal of confidence in your neutrality. So please be cautious. You have been already informed about ARBIPA sanctions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV versus WP:RGW? Attempts to promote the Gurjar community are ten-a-penny on Wikipedia, and in particular where the "other side" is claimed to be Rajput. They almost always fall foul of our core policies etc. Care is indeed required and, sad though it is, too many people make a rod for their own backs. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I make no attempt to hide the fact that I represent the Gujjar point of view, and for that I might come across as someone who wants to shove his opinion down everyone's throat. My purpose is to give my side of the argument, but without censoring the other side. I do reserve the right to hold opinions, and try to convince others. Whatever I want to change, I will consult you beforehand, I am not the one to eat someone's cake without asking!;) Axtramedium (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: You should refrain from making these "ten-a-penny" comments, as they are highly inflammatory towards the Gujjar community. Try to stay at the topic, whether my point of view pleases your wishes or not.

I appreciate that you are helping me learn Wikipedia policies, but it almost feels like you are trying to discourage me from sharing my point of view by using the niceties of these policies.

Wikipedia takes a neutral approach so people can hear all sides of the argument and make up their own mind on the topic. I will try to make my side of the argument, and the other side is more than welcome to do so as well. The object of neutrality is not there to hide information from one side to make an artificial balance towards the other, but it's there to give an opportunity to all sides so they can make their arguments clear and fully understandable for the readers.

If my arguments are backed up by reliable secondary sources, then what seems to be the problem? Axtramedium (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If my arguments are backed up by reliable secondary sources, then what seems to be the problem? Having reliable sources is merely the starting point. When you have multiple opinions among the sources, you have to evaluate them by various ways, based on the time and venue of publication, the credentials and the notability of the scholars etc. You still have to cover all viewpoints. These are not easy things to do, and you would be well-advised to follow the guidance of experienced editors like Sitush. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Gurjara connections

The facts known about the Gurjara connections of "Gurjara-Pratiharas" are as follows.

• We have an inscription of Gallaka from 795AD, which says Nagabhata I defeated the "invincible Gurjaras."
• We have Huen Tsang, a hundred years earlier, describing the country of Gurjara (ku-che-lo) whose capital was Bhinmal (pi-lo-mo-lo).
• We have Arab chronicles talking about the campaign of Al Junayd (723-726 AD) on the country of Gurjara (Jurz).

So it seems that, by the time of Nagabhata I, the country itself was called Gurjara and its people Gurjaras. So all references to "Gurjara" in the later texts are ambiguous. The Rajor inscription from 959 AD is much too late. It settles nothing. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kautaliya3: It makes little sense to say that "Gurjaras" established a kingdom named "Gurjara" and, lo and behold, everyone from that kingdom started calling themselves "Gurjara"! Not to mention that the official name of the kingdom was Gurjaratra, which meant country protected by the Gurjaras! Naghabhata was a Pratihara, and Pratiharas had several different lines, ruling several different regions, it is reasonable to presume that Gallaka is referring to Naghabhata subduing other Pratihara lines. The words "invincible Gurjaras" sound more like praise than damnation, and why would a vassal king dare to praise the family of his master's enemy? Unless the family was the master's family! Axtramedium (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me. By the time of Nagabhata I, there was a Gurjara country with its capital at Bhinmal. Nagabhata presumably defeated them and established his own capital at the neighbouring Jalor (20 km away). Once Nagabhata and his descendants expanded their kingdom, the neighbouring kingdoms called them Gurjara-Pratiharas, i.e., the Pratihara clan of the Gurjara country. Whether that is what exactly happened, nobody knows. But it is a clearly plausible theory, promoted by well-known scholars such as Dasharatha Sharma. You are arguing that it is not plausible, and you are on thin ice there. So I think it is time for you to stop this argument. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your analysis of Gurjaratra is stretched. Ratra is cognate with Rashtra and basically means country. To give you a similar example, Andhras were an ethnic group from Bihar, who migrated south of Vindhyas in about 300BC. They established the Satavahana kingdoms in Maharastra and the present day Andhra Pradesh. Note that it is called "Andhra Pradesh" (the country of Andhras) and all its people call themselves "Andhras." There is no implication that every person of Andhra Pradesh belonged to the Andhra tribes that migrated in 300BC. The dominant ethnic groups can lend their name to regions and countries and then they lose the ownership of their own name. That is how it is. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kautaliya3: It absolutely makes no sense, as enemies usually dont like to call themselves by the name of their enemies. If Gurjaras were enemies of Naghabhatta it makes little sense to say that his family still called itself Gurjara. Even if he was from Gurjara country, he was well within power to get rid of this designation, and he should have, if he was not a Gurjara. The phrase "invincible Gurjaras" does sound out of place, the fuedotory is practically praising the enemies of his master, which makes no sense. Different branches of a same family have always contented for supremacy, and there is no reason to believe that Gurjaras didnt compete with each other also.

The kingdom's official name was Gurjaratra, and not Gurjara. It was called "Gurjara kingdom", to say "kingdom of the Gurjaras". Just like today ancient Gujaratis would have also called themselves Gurjarati, not Gujar or Gurjara. Whenever it is refered as "Gurjara" it means "kingdom of the Gurjaras", it makes no sense to call it "kingdom of the Gurjaras" if the rulers were not meant to be Gurjaras.

Dadda I, the uncle of Naghabhatta, is called "Gurjara-nrpati-vamsa" in an inscription, this proves that Naghabhatta was a Gurjara, as vamsa clearly implies family.

Mahipala, who was ruling a vast empire, is called "Gurjara Raja" by Pampa. Why should an emperor be called the Raja of a small territory only, it makes more sense that the term denoted his family.

Same thing with the Arab and Rashtrakuta references that mention the imperial Pratiharas as Gujar. Axtramedium (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a limit to how far we can go with this argumentation here, because whether we think it makes sense or not makes little difference. We still have to represent all scholarly opinions in the article. However, you are making two claims here for which I haven't see any evidence: (i) that the Nagabhata's family called itself Gurjara, (ii) that Dadda I was the uncle of Nagabhata. Can you provide sources for these claims? - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautaliya: I think I have provided several reasons why I believe they were Gurjaras, there is no point going in circles over this. Regarding Dadda I, you should look at this.

"Inscriptions testify to the existence of a line of fedatory Gurjrar chiefs ruling at Broach. The earliest date of the third chief of this dynasty is 629 A.D. Allowing fifty years for the two generations that preceded him, we get the date 580 A.D. for the Samanata Dadda who founded the line. The date corresponds so very well with that of Dadda, the youngest son of Harichandra, that the identity of the two may be at once presumed." (Epigraphia Indica. Vol. XVIII. p.98. Jodhpur Inscription of Pratihara Bauka by R.C. Majumdar.) 173.206.71.53 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Edit Etymology Section

I propose that the etymology section should look something like this:

Etymology:

The nomenclature "Gurjara-Pratihara" is based on the Rajor inscription. It mentions the Pratihara king, Maharajadhiraja Mathanadeva, as "Gurjara Pratiharavayah". This expression is defined by scholars, such as Rama Shankar Tripathi, to mean that the Pratiharas were a clan of the Gurjara tribe. Some scholars, such as C.V. Vaidya, argue that the word Gurjara in this expression does not imply a tribe or people but the ancient country called Gurjara (Gurjjaratra-bhumi). Tripathi however challenges this view of Vaidya based on the 12th line of the Rajor inscription, which reads "together with all the neighbouring fields cultivated by the Gurjaras". Here the term Gurjara has specifically been used to mention a people, so he says that it is reasonable to assume that the same term should imply the same thing in the other line as well, which is Gurjara people and not Gurjara country (Gurjjaratra-bhumi).

The Pratiharas are also called Gurjara by the Rashtrakuta records. The Arab writers like Abu Zaid and Al Masudi who wrote about their fights with the Pratiharas, also referred to them as Gurjaras. These references to Gurjaras were undoubtedly applied to the imperial Pratiharas, because at this time only the imperial Praitharas were powerful enough to contend against the Arabs and the Rashtrakuttas. The Kanarese poet Pampa calls Mahipala, who as an imperial Pratihara king, as "Gurjara Raja". If the title "Gurjara Raja" is taken in the geographical sense, then it would not be suitable for Mahipala, because Gurjara only represented a small kingdom in Mahipala's vast empire. The term could only be suitable if it was meant in a tribal sense.

According to the Gawalior and Jodhpur inscriptions, the great Gurjara-Pratihara ancestor the glorious Sri Lakshamana was known as a Pratihara (door-keeper), as he masterfully repelled his enemies; which is how this family came to be known as Pratihara. However, Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava notes that some people believe that a Gurjara chief served the Rashtrakuta ruler as a pratihara (door-keeper) at a sacrifice at Ujjain about the middle of the eighth century CE, and that's where they got this name from. Axtramedium (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you have cherrypicked sources. How many more times must you be told that not all sources agree with those that you have selected? - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: Care to explain what exactly are you referring to? So I can reply to accordingly. If you read my reference you should see that Ramashankar Tripathi references C.V.Vaidya on p.221 when he talks about the opposing views to his views. I am only stating what the secondary source has said exactly, but only in my own words, so the readers can understand it better. I am not mixing anything here, or cherry picking. Axtramedium (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

He is saying that you are picking the sources you like, and ignoring the others that you don't like. You can't do that as a Wikipedian. In the Nagabhata I article, I have cited two current journal articles by Sanjay Sharma and Shanta Rani Sharma, published within the last decade, from opposing points of view. You need to read them. If you can't access them, please send me email and I can send you copies. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kautaliya3: This article is about "Gurjara"-Pratiharas, and the etymology section contains no information about how this nomenclature came to being. As of now, it contains some random references to Rajputs (thats ironic, because neither the Pratiharas, nor their contemporaries, ever called them that). The reference I provided not only explains the term, but also gives both perspectives on its meanings. I clearly dont agree with C.V. Vaidya's point of view, and I have given his reference, havent I? hows that biased?

How do you know what they or their contemporaries called them? And why should your opinion rate more highly than that of reliable academic sources etc? BTW, I think the Agnihotri quotation is very ambiguous - do they mean "the nomenclature" in the sense of general usage or in the sense of their own writing? I am also not wonderfully happy about using Vaidya, who was writing nearly a century ago, nor am I sure that all sources rely solely on the Rajor inscription, which is effectively how you are presenting things in your draft.

I must add: thanks for presenting it as a draft - it is much better to do that in situations where there is disagreement than to edit the article directly and potentially kick off an edit war etc. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please also note that I have just had to fix edits such as this, which happened recently and do not reflect the sources. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Axtramedium: This Etymology section states that scholars like Baij Nath Puri use the term "Gurjara-Pratiharas" and the Origins section describes both the Tripathi and Dasharatha Sharma views. We could add some more detail to the Etymology section but we can't erase the fact that there are diverging views among scholars. Neither can we act as if one view is more correct than the other. I will work on adding some more detail. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I have already explained this matter, but I will do it again. The Pratihara king, Maharajadhiraja Mathanadeva, is called "Gurjara Pratiharavay" in Rajor inscription, and that is the only epiphrahical instance of this nomeclature. The knowledge of this term DOES originate from this inscription.

How do I know they were not called Rajputs? Because the Rashtrakuttas, Palas, and the Arabs, called them Gurjaras, not Rajput. 173.206.71.53 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The etymology section is suppose to explain the origin of both words Gurjara and Pratihara. But I am afraid thats not the case here, and I fail to understand why its not apparent to you.

Pratiharas were not Gujjars. It's a mistake commonly done. BTW,they might have some connections with Rajputs, though unclear. In an inscription of the late ninth century issued by King Bhoja-I, they claimed Solar descent for the dynasty and Lakshmana being the ancestor of their family. Their inscriptions were silent on the question of origin till the glorious days of Bhoja. This epigraphic tradition of the Solar descent is connected chronologically with the period during which they were the dominant political power. The tradition, thus,represents a stage of imperial prominence with the temptation to establish a link with the heroic age of the epics. And, such things were common at that time.Ghatus (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the term "Pratihara" also occurs for the first time in Bhoja's inscription. Before that, they probably didn't have a name for the dynasty. So, "Gurjara" has a greater claim to their name. However, Gurjara was a country based at Bhinmal in 630 AD according to Hieun Tsang. K. M. Mushi says that all the people that came from that country were called Gurjaras. See the Origins section. So, the ambiguity between the ethnic group and the general people of Gurjara country will forever remain. Our friend is never going to be happy. Such is life. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautaliya3:This is a made up ambiguity. Even if Gurjara was originally the name of a kingdom, its people would be called "Gurjari" (feminine gender) not "Gurjar" (masculine gender). Just like Gujrati, Rajasthani, Punjabi, Sindhi, Kashmiri, etc. Not to forget (again) that the proper name of this kingdom was "Gurjaratra" which means "country protected by Gurjaras", which is further evidence that Gurjars were first and foremost a people, who named several places after them. (And Gurjaratra didnt stand for Gurjara Rashtra or Ratra, it stands for Gurjara+Tra). Again! the term "Gurjara" was used to say "kingdom of the Gurjaras", and Huen Tsang used it in the same way.

But lets assume for a moment that the term Gurjara stood for the citizens of Gurjara kingdom, the Pratiharas would still be Gurjaras, as they belonged to Gurjara kingdom. There is no escaping the reality that the Pratiharas belonged to the Gurjara identity, no matter what you try. And the Rajputs would still be the descendants of these Gurjaras. Indeed, some people will never be happy, and life is beautiful. Cheers! - Axtramedium (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, how can you even think that the changes you made in the origin section are acceptable when the very title of your source is "Exploding the Myth of the Gūjara Identity of the Imperial Pratihāras"!!! May be its just me, but it doesnt look very neutral to me! - Axtramedium (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Axtramedium, your claims ("There is no escaping the reality...") are your own original research. Indian Historical Review, on the other hand, is a peer-reviewed academic journal. If you have a reliable source that supports your claims, feel free to add it to the article. It's perfectly acceptable to have multiple attributable viewpoints in an article ("According to X, .... According to Y, ..."). But, please don't remove content supported by a reliable citation. utcursch | talk 19:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, his preferred viewpoint is already covered. He just wants to delete the alternative viewpoint. That, he can't do, as per WP:NPOV. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Utcursch:Are you kidding me? This edit is completely unnecessary, almost everything this edit added is already present in the section. The only thing new added by it is the information regarding Gallaka inscription, to which BTW there is no information available on the net at all. Not only that, apparently this citation has contradicting information, in one sentence it says the Pratiharas never called themselves “Gurjara” then in another it refers to Rajor inscription which actually contains the term “Gurjara Pratihara” refering to a Gurjara Pratihara king, in a Gurjara Pratihara kings inscription. May be you are too quick to judge me, but when I tried to propose a change here, you should read the kind of responses I got from this person. He did pretty much everything opposite to what he preached. - Axtramedium (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that was already present in the section was the Gurjara Pratihārānvayah bit. You could have simply streamlined its two mentions instead of removing the entire paragraph. "No information available on the net at all" isn't a valid reason (besides not being true). Rajor inscription belongs to Mathanadeva, not the Pratiharas themselves. So, there is no contradiction. utcursch | talk 20:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And I agree that the etymology section should explain the prefix Gurjara as well. The redundancy and overlapping content between the Etymology and Origin sections need to be resolved, though. utcursch | talk 20:14, 7 August 2015(UTC)

@Utcursch:Maharajadhiraja Mathanadeva was also a Pratihara as is evident from his title "Ghurjara Pratiharavayah", and not only that, the term "Maharajadhiraja" implies that he was more than a "mere" vassal king. The term Maharajadhiraja means "king of kings", which if not already apparent, implies an imperial position. - Axtramedium (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Axtramedium: I have referred you to these current journal papers on 31 July [1], and I offered to send you the papers if you can't access them. But you never contacted me. You should not be continuing this debate with your WP:OR without reading these papers. The new Etymology section that you have added is duplicating the material of the Origins section and it is problematic for that reason. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My two cents: the etymology section can contain 1-2 sentences (something like "They are also referred to as Gurjara-Pratiharas; some scholars believe that Gurjara refers to the ethnicity, others believe that it refers to the region they ruled. See origin section for explanation"). That way, duplication can be avoided. utcursch | talk 22:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautaliya3: I want to make this clear that I have no intention of censoring anybody. I want all perspectives to be present, and easily understandable. You can send me the information at axtramedium@gmail.com, and I will get back to you as soon as possible. -Axtramedium (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Two points: (1) We are writing an Encyclopedia. Our objective is to inform, not to argue. (2) For historical information, we have to follow WP:HISTRS for sources. Of the sources you mentioned, the book by Rama Shankar Tripathi is the only one that has some chance of meeting the requirements. (However, I suspect that it is also a reprint of a very old book, in which case it wouldn't meet the requirements.) I have sent you the current papers by email. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)