Talk:Rajput

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (10 August 2004 to 16 August 2005):
• Archive 2 (21 August 2005 to 30 August 2005):
• Archive 3 (30 August 2005 to 3 September 2005):
• Archive 4 (3 September 2005 to 4 September 2005):
• Archive 5 (4 September 2005 to 10 September 2005):
• Archive 6 (10 September 2005 to 16 September 2005):
• Archive 7 (16 September 2005 to 27 September 2005):
• Archive 8 (27 September 2005 to 28 September 2005):
• Archive 9 (28 September 2005 to 2 October 2005):
• Archive 10 (2 October to 3 October 2005):
• Archive 11 (3 October 2005 to 12 October 2005)
• Archive 12 (12 October 2005 to 02 November 2005)
• Archive 13 (02 November 2005 to 09 November 2005)
• Archive 14 (09 November 2005 to 17 November 2005)
• Archive 15 (17 November 2005 to 11 December 2005)

Cry for moving to other things

There is so much that is wrong with the content of this page -- no respectable encyclopaedia can read like this; it is boastful, bombastic and PoV to the point of being ridiculous; it is absolutely replete with historical inaccuracies. Does nobody care about anything other than having it known that some rajputs have in the past embraced Islam? Does that MATTER?? Can we please move on to making this page readable, at the very least?

This disregard for everything but that one point makes me wonder whether anyone out there actually knows anything about history in general, apart from holding an immovable opinion on identity issues. - ImpuMozhi 18:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Taking the fiction out of history has become a battle in case of this article and that of few others. Unfortunately many editors like the encyclopedia to be a storybook and present their view of the world and events. As far as the discussion regarding the Muslim Rajputs goes, it really does matter for our own identity and for the accuracy of the information presented in this encyclopedia that we acknowledge and honor the historical facts. We have tried many times to take the storytelling and biased information out of the article but they are always back. You are welcomed to try and make it cleaner. خرم Khurram 19:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A few rajputs have converted to Islam. What's the big deal? Why not describe any achievements of those converts on an exclusive page dedicated to the "muslim-rajput" community? In converting to Islam, those converts rejected their rajput identity and adopted a new identity as muslims. Regarding that:

• Why do you want to insult the choice made by the forefathers by making rajput-ism a central point of your identity?
• Converts will have a different viewpoint on history, identify with different emotions, have a different CULTURE. Why not describe that in a different page?
• Why to burden the remaining rajput community with the baggage of reconciling converts?

What would be a travesty upon "the accuracy of the information presented in this encyclopeadia" is to give undue importance to the fact that a few rajputs converted to Islam. Once that insistance is given up, I hope to be able to deal with the story-spinners to get a more objective and professional version of this page accepted. ImpuMozhi 20:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

ImpuMozhi,

>>First of all my friend, our forefathers never left their identity of Rajput and our religion does not prohibit it. It is a known fact in the history and how can we let anyone take our identity from us for that matter?

>>I think like many we are confusing the culture with the religion here. Culture is something different than a religion. People practicing different religions live and contribute to the same culture. In every society in the world this is the known and proven fact so the converts have the same culture as they did before. The only thing that changes is the religious beliefs. As far as Emotions go, I do not think the intensity of emotions change, it is only the direction that changes. Describing them in different page means accepting their status as not legitimate Rajputs. I can personally agree to it if we have pages for Hindu Rajputs, Sikh Rajputs as well but if we are to have a page titled as "Rajput" then Muslim Rajputs have to be in it as they always had been in history.

>>We are not trying to burden the other community with anything. It is just about saying and promoting what is and has always been historically correct.

>>You may say that a few Rajputs converted to Islam but that "few" is a very considerable amount and proportion and to those "few" people their identity is not less important than for the "majority". Also in terms of number I do not think Hindu Rajputs are that more in numbers than their Muslim counter parts.

It is all about identity and I am not mistaken when I say that we, the Muslim Rajputs, are not less tenacious in keeping our identity alive and honored. This is our right and we have the means and will to protect it and never can we allow it to be misplaced or mistreated. Had it been a website like others on the web, I personally would not have bothered, but it being an encyclopedia demands that the correct information be posted here and I think it is more of a duty than a privilege.

خرم Khurram 21:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

also to add that if we agree to shiv and others that Muslims are not rajputs then they might continue saying that muslim cannot be gujjar, jats etc etc..

please try searching, our ancestors have never denied there Rajput identity and we know very well where our roots are.[1](shiv doesnt even reads the discussion and keeps on arguing)

I totally agree to Khurram. Wisesabre 01:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Indians vandalising Wikipedia!

It seems now the Govt. of Pakistan may need to intervene to give the place the muslim rajputs have been fighting for so long!! [2] (read the last letter! ) Ss india 09:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

How does this contribute to the article? I think the above comments are categorized as Personal Attacks according to Wikipedia's policy. Please refrain from it as it is not helpful for any of us.

خرم Khurram 15:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This doesnt contribute to the article itself, but rather highlights the anguish faced by anyone who sees their pages being destroyed. Theres nothing personal or attacking about it. Or perhaps thats also only my POV??? Ss india 16:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ss,

You did nothing wrong in posting this newspaper article. I agree with you there is nothing personal nor attacking in what you posted. Do not be afraid in making your posts. So far you have shown great maturity in all your posts. Keep up the good work.

Shivraj Singh 18:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

lol i agree with Khurram that this doesnt belong here. BTW Official Pakistan Govt. versions of South Asian history are a joke. They shouldnt have a place here either. अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 16:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think any "official" history is almost always fake. Don't you agree?

خرم Khurram 16:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is fantastic!! I never expected pakistanis to appeal to their government to resolve this dispute! Congrats everybody! we are actually making news. Paranoia of pakistanis indeed manifests itself in comic ways. Congrats ss_india to dig up this newspaper letter.

-- sisodia

sisodia this is not the only page which is disputed by pakistanis. try the pages on Indo-Pak wars.

अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 09:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Aryan what are they disputing on Indo-Pak wars? Are they claiming they won them?

Shivraj Singh 18:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yea in 1948 India invaded Kashmir, in 1965 Pakis won, in 1999 Pakistan won the wr but India won diplomatic war, LeT are freedom fighters.... next thing i'll be seeing here that worlds flat! Check the talk page for Kargil War where unqualified editors tried to put disputed tag.

अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 15:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Aryan I will look into these pages as well. Shivraj Singh 18:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Another view

I might be kicking up a storm here which is not what I want to do. Didn't Shivaji declare himself to be a Rajput through a Brahmin priest?(something Bhatt - started with a G - Gangadhar? if I remember correctly.) This was so that he could be coronated King. I don't see the point of the fighting - if Muslims want to be called Rajputs, so be it. You can put in both points of view - isn't that what a neutral article is supposed to do ? Wouldn't that be acceptable?

(unsigned)

Excusez moi, being a Maratha i can tell you, Shivaji did indeed descend from the line of Mewar but he never considered him to be a Rajput, he was first and formost a Maratha. Many of our clans have substantial Rajput ancestry. Gngadhar Bhat was called to declare Shivaji as the "King under the umbrella" since local Brahmins were hostile to Shivaji since he tried to reform various Brahminical customs and was a disciple of Ramdas (who challenged Brahminism).

अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 02:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Updates

I have moved two sections created by Shivraj Singh to separate pages.

Rajput Clans
Rajputs and Invasions of India

They are of significant interest. Rajputs and Invasions of India presents a particular perspective, however readers of Wikipedia will find it very useful.

--Malaiya 23:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Shahis and Janjuas

The Shahis of Gandhara ruled for much longer time than is usually thought.

Hsuan Tsang in 630 AD encountered a Kshatriya ruler of Kapisa, who is sometimes considered to the Sahi king Khingala who had the maha-vinayaka statue of Gardez installed. The statue has an inscription at the bottom.

The Buddhist Gilgit manuscripts also mention a Sahi king. Sahi kings are also mention by the Jain author Mahesara Suri who wrote Kalakcharya- kathnaka.

In Khajuraho, the main deity in the Lakshmana temple of Chandella Yashovarman is Lord Vaikuntha (i.e. Vishnu). According to the inscription of 953 AD, it was once in the possession of a Shahi king, who gave it to King Herambapal, whose son in turn gave it to Yashovarman.

Some Janjuas are still Hindu/Sikh. If they are indeed descendants of the Shahis, they indeed have distinguisehd ancestors.

Rajatarangini of Kalhana frequently mentions mentions the descendants of the Shahi clan and referes to them as Rajaputra.

Mahabharata does suggest presence of the Yadu clan (which is associated with Chandra vamsha) in that region. According to the tradition the Bhattis of Jaisalmer once ruled Gazna.

--Malaiya 23:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

> What my understanding of Monistic is that we believe there is only ONE Creator/Energy in this universe and everything happens upon his command. Am I wrong?

I'm afraid you are. Mon-ism is the metaphysics that the whole is essentially one principle, has one basic value. There's no notion of command or creator. Mono-theism believes that there is one personal God and he 'ought' to be worshipped. Monism does not postulate this ought. Monism is not dogmatic - that is the beauty of it, and that's what gives its essential Aryan feature. http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/0597/0036.html

> Monistic Theism is a form of Monotheism that is found in Hinduism.

Pls. read that link carefully which you yourself gave; it clearly says monistic theism is 'not' monotheism. It is different from it.

> AMbroodEY also says that Hinduism is a MONOTHEISTIC religion

Well, AMbroodEY is wrong.

> My friend Islam only says that everyone is born equal. I do not know how Hinduism acknowledges many natures but in Islam it is that every child is born without any sin and nothing but the right in it and with a pure soul that knows who his Creator is. This is what Islam means when it is said that every child is born as a Muslim. Does Hinduism have any other pure natures?

Its as simple as the fact that Hinduism acknowledges other creeds and affirms that these other creeds have their own place in the Whole. Islam doesn't. Should a Muslim take to another path, it immediately pronounces, he is a sinner and Allah will punish him and he will burn in hell. And likewise, it considers a non-muslim a heretic and cries for his annihilation or conversion! Sin, guilt, retributive justice, that there should only be one creed, and saying all paths are Allah's - these exist only in semitic monotheism because it has no concept of Dharma.

> In the same token that you have said that the ideas sink into one's blood, why it can't be the case that one's blood already contains Islam in it and that all one needs to do is to dig down in him? Why shouldn't we give this argument a chance to prove itself?

I already did! It was point 1) in the two categories I listed. In which case I said, it gradually forms a class in itself. Which further means it can't be said that Hindu Rajputs and 'Muslim Rajputs' are very similar. They aren't. Perhaps you could answer what I asked Shivraj Singh - how many Muslim Rajputs fought against Islamic aggression in India??

> The words of Guru Jee that you have reported similarly correspond to the idea of "Wahdat-ul-Wajood" in Islamic Sufism. I also call Sikhism closer to Islam because of the fact that a large portion of "Guru Garanth Sahib" contains the teachings and verses of Muslim Sufis and their idealogy.

Sufism was heavily influenced by Hinduism and Hindu Bhakti movements. So sufism is not completely Islamic.

> You have very kindly presented me with an outer link but all that I can say is that it is clearly written in the teachings of Baba Jee Guru Nanak that he opposed Verna Caste System and this is the teaching that he preached to his Sikhs.

The original Hindu purpose of the caste system was so that each nature could develop its potentialities fully and become the best that each is. Guru Nanak understood this; he didn't oppose the caste system, only the exploitation and degeneration of that system, not the idea of the caste itself. These are all nuances. Any true Sikh will understand that.

Suryabandhu

Surya my friend,

As I have admitted previously, I am not a scholar on Islamic studies and only knows what an average Muslim knows but I am afraid to mention that your concepts about Hindusim are in direct contrast with those presented in this encyclopedia and those of many respected scholars. You said that the purpose of caste system is to let every creed flourish. But Hinduism also said that "Truth is ONE". Actually as far as the basics are concerned, the Hindu belief are almost the same about the unity of the God as any other Abrahamic religion but the different comes to the authority of that God. It is now proven that upon their enterance to India, the Ariyans adopted many customs and beliefs of the Darawarian people and among them was the concept of deities and authority of God. The word Dharma also is not Hindu in its origin. Ashoka the Great used this word in his code of law for the first time so the word itself does not have religious origins. It rather has an administrative origin.

There were many Muslims who fought against Musilm Emperors. The term Islamic Aggression looks somewhat childish to me since India has always been attacked by outer forces no matter who was the ruler. This event didn't stop even when Muslims were ruling it. Ghauri, and all the invaders after him came and defeated the Muslim Empires primarily so I think it is completely unjustified to term anything as Islamic aggression. I hope you understand.

To your question about a Muslim Rajput having a soul, I would say that every Rajput has a Muslim soul in him and some recognize it and other don't.

Regarding Baba Jee Guru Nanak what I had said was that he opposed the concept of caste as a tool to identify someone as higher and others as lower just by birth (Just like teachings of Islam). I don't know if he said that no one is Rajput or not but he never accepted the division of Brahmin, Kshytria, Vaisha and Shudra.

Finally, don't you think we are moving away from the topic my friend?

خرم Khurram 15:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Kinship and descent groups

Monier-Williams an outstanding Sanskritist and compiler of the standard sanskrit dictionary translates a series of terms essentially connected with descent groups and kinship relations: - vansha, kula, jati, gotra, jana, varna. [Page 652] M Monier-Williams A Sanskrit English Dictionary New York 1976.

Rajput claimants have to adhere to this ancient classification system of India and have to be bound by and beleive in each one of vansha, kula, jati, gotra, jana, varna. Rules are clearly laid out and cannot change if muslims or westerners are not happy with them.

--DPSingh 11:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sez who? Your statement comes down to "The rules exist, and you must obey them!" But who makes the rules? Who enforces them? Rules are ideas held by humans and enforced by humans, and humans often change their minds about rules. Or fight over what they are, which is what is happening here. Zora 13:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer to all your questions is obvious: Indian society. Every individual is bound by the rules of the society and these rules were laid down when the first cultures arose in antiquity. To every Indian they are very obvious but to outsiders they are arcane. You should read some literature of the British time, who were baffled by kinship and castes in India and tried to write books on this subject.

--DPSingh 11:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have just one point that I have been making again and again and again. If the Muslim Rajputs have always been acknowledged and accepted in the history then why do we have all this discussion now? Is it so difficult to comprehend?

خرم Khurram 15:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite a few people also suggested a separate page. What did you think of that? Ss india 17:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

We can have that if we have seperate pages for Hindu and Sikh Rajputs as well and clearly acknowledge that Muslim Rajputs are no less Rajputs than their Hindu and Sikh counterparts.

خرم Khurram 17:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

> I am afraid to mention that your concepts about Hindusim are in direct contrast with those presented in this encyclopedia and those of many respected scholars.

Dear Khurram, You only have to take the effort to go through the original source to see if I'm wrong or not. Nevermind encyclopaedias. That's upto you.

> But Hinduism also said that "Truth is ONE".

Yes, but it didn't say "There is ONLY ONE TRUTH"; that's the difference.

> Actually as far as the basics are concerned, the Hindu belief are almost the same about the unity of the God as any other Abrahamic religion but the different comes to the authority of that God.

I have already made my case for the difference between monism and monotheism.

> The word Dharma also is not Hindu in its origin.

Dharma comes from an Indo-European root *dhr- http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE96.html

> Ashoka the Great used this word in his code of law for the first time so the word itself does not have religious origins. It rather has an administrative origin.

The mention of Dharma is as old as our Vedic literature... http://www.vri.dhamma.org/research/95sem/sem9505c.html

> To your question about a Muslim Rajput having a soul, I would say that every Rajput has a Muslim soul in him and some recognize it and other don't.

See. Again and again, you exhibit how Islam is un-dharmic! "Every Rajput has a Muslim soul" is a clear example of monotheistic tyranny and narrow-mindedness. Why stop it there?! Why don't you say every being has a Muslim soul!, lol... you'd have just recited the Quran. All of which just validates the very first post I made here.

> Finally, don't you think we are moving away from the topic my friend?

You cannot even name any so called Muslim Rajputs or Muslim Rajput armies who share a common historicity with Hindu Rajputs in fighting off the Islamic invaders. So, I think its a little premature to conclude as that anonymous writer of the 3rd message on archive 3 that "a Rajput is a Rajput no matter whom/what he prays to".

Suryabandhu

Surya my friend,

First of all, yes indeed the soul of every human being is "Muslim" and this is the equality that Islam speaks of. No one is smaller than anyone else. No one is inferior to anyone but on the basis of one's own deeds. You call it Narrow-mindedness my friend we call it equality.

I think the word "Dharma" entered the Vedic literature at a very later time since it is proven that Ashoka was the first one to use it.

Fighting Muslim invaders. Well as a matter of fact my friend, Rajputs themselves were invaders. Since the pre-historic times, India has always been a favorite abode for Central Asian invaders. Why are we so much enthusiastic about the term Muslim invaders? Why not talk about the role of Rajputs in times of Aryan invasion? In times of Indo-Scythian invasion? Muslims and Muslim Rajputs fought the invading armies not less than any Hindu dynasty or army. After Mahmud of Ghazni, every invading army primarily overthrew a Muslim dynasty be it Ghauri, Tughlaq, Babur, Nadir Shah, Ahmad Shah etc. So whom do you consider invader and whom defender? Was India only the part being ruled by the Hindu rajputs? But the term "Hindu" itself is a foreign term not local to the sub-continent and it was not associated with a religion until the 20th century. I have repeatedly said that there is a lot of religious rhetoric and misconceptions spread by the social hierarchy just to strengthen their rule. These fancy stories, although far from truth and reality, are an important ingredient of the recipe favorite among the power hungry circles of both Pakistan and India and it is sad to witness that even the literate people of the two countries are closing their minds to logic and are clinging to these myths and terminologies that do not have any factual base.

I have a question though. Does Hinduism allow a person marrying to two sister at the same time?

خرم Khurram 19:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"I think the word "Dharma" entered the Vedic literature at a very later time since it is proven that Ashoka was the first one to use it." May I please nominate the above for Comment of the year. It shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the topic being talked about. But still don't give up... everyone is enjoying these funny observations for sure. Buddy , pick up the Bhagvadgita, and check out the first word of the first shlok (verse) "Dharmkshetre kurukshetre....." and then resolve to think before you post. Frankly with this, I am getting more convinced that having two pages will allow enough space for both groups. But, the pages should be called Rajputs(in India), and Rajputs(in Pakistan). That way the reader can go from the main page to the region, and not religion he chooses. Of course depends on how many guys like this idea. Ss india 10:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

For the benefit of Non Indians

Continuing from kinship discussion I feel there is lot of confusion in the minds of non-Indians.

Kinship and descent groups in India are based on the rules laid out for vansha, kula, jati, gotra, jana, varna. Every hindu adheres to these regardless of being a Kshatriya/Brahmin/Vaishya or Shudra (ancient classifications of Indian society). For example Shudras worship there kuladeva and kuladevi and so do Brahmin,Vaishya and Kshatriya. Religions which arose in India like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism which had lot of voluntary conversions of practising hindus into there fold are still viewed as "same" by other hindus from a day to day point of view.

In Indian society acceptance is measured by a desire to forge a new relatioship with a person i.e marriage. Marraiges between all combinations of Jains,Buddhists,Sikhs and Hindus are acceptable. Indian society does not accord the same equality to followers of other religions like Christianity and Islam though they have been living in India for many hundreds of years. Followers of these religions do not fit into rules of Indian society and are hence considered "without jaati". Consequently Indian society does not accept Hindus/Jains/Sikhs/Buddhists marrying Christians or Muslims.

There are Buddhists outside India also and these rules do not apply to them for example in Japan, China or Thailand.

When some rajput women married mughals rajputs did not marry muslim women deliberately because this union would have produced children which could not have fit into the rules of Indian society. Such children could not continue with the jaati of there father. Similar transition of jaati took place if a brahmin married a vaishya. Parent's jaati could continue in a child if and only if both parents belonged to the same jaati to begin with.

--DPSingh 13:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Ss; I agree with your suggestion, but region could still be a problematic classification, because someone could soon argue Pakistan was once India, etc. and on and on. So we must tackle this issue and nip it at the bud. I think Religion is a good criterion. Another suggestion would be taking the chronological way, which would be least controversial and we'd be able to just stick to the facts. We begin with the origins of the Rajputs and show how they evolved, spread, and developed over time.

I don't see any point in debating with Khurram anymore. My point is made, and my Guruji says you cannot combat narrow-mindedness with reason!

Khurram, when you can "really" answer my question of how many so called Muslim Rajputs fought side by side and hand in hand, with fellow Hindu Rajputs against Islamic invaders, then we'll have something to talk about. Pls. don't try to bluff your way out by saying Rajputs were invaders too. That's not the point. Rajputs are bound together by a common factual historicism of having fought off Islamic invaders - whether you like to acknowledge this or not - its a fact. Now, how many Muslim Rajputs can be said to have been a part of 'that history'??? If there are none, then the suffix muslim-RAJPUTS has only so much meaning that it conveys, when Islam seeps through Rajput blood, the end result is a Mujahideen and the birth of a Mujahideen culture.

Full stop.

Then you can start a separate new page on Mujahideens, who are in no way similar to Hindu Rajputs.

Suryabandhu

Disagrements?

Went through all archives and disputes can be categorized: 1. rajputs and non-rajputs differ on how easily India was conquered. 2. role of rmarathas,sikhs,rajput as vanguards of hindu religion. Contrast with Zoroastrians/Persia under Yezdezird during Invasion of Persia. 3. rajputs that converted are rajputs or not.

Point 3 I have addressed in kinship and descent group section and For Benefit of Non-Indians section.

rajputs and non-rajputs differ on how easily India was conquered

This point is addressed by W.W. Hunter, THE INDIAN EMPIRE, ITS PEOPLE, HISTORY AND PRODUCTS, First published: London: Trubner & Co., Ludgate Hill, 1886, ISBN 81-206-1581-6. [CHAPTER X. Page 268].

Within a hundred years after his (Muhammad's) death, his followers had invaded the countries of Asia as far as the Hindu Kush. Here there progress was stayed and Islam had to consolidate itself during three more centuries before it grew strong enough to grasp the rich prize of India. But almost from first the Arabs had fixed eager eyes upon that wealthy country. Fifteen years after the death of prophet, Usman sent a sea expedition to Thana and Broach on the Bombay coast (647 ? AD). Other raisds towards Sind took place in 662 and 664 with no results.

[ Skipped a para where attack on Sind and its recapture by rajputs is described]

The armies of Islam had carried the crescent from the Hindu Kush westwards, through Asia, Africa and Souther Europe, to distant Spain and Gaul, before they obtained a foothold in Punjab. This long delay was due, not only to the daring of individual tribes, such as Sind Rajputs, just mentioned but to the millitary organization of the Hindu Kingdoms. [ Para continues where Hunter goes on to describe various Rajput/Hindu kings of this era throughout India. There were very many of them. ]

Each of these groups of kingdoms, alike in the north and in the south, had a certain power of coherence to oppose to a foreign invader; while the large number of groups and units rendered conquest a very tedious process. For even when the overlord or central authority was vanquished , the separate units had to be defeated in detail, and each State supplied a nucleus for subsequent revolt. We have seen how the brilliant attempt in 711 , to found a lasting Muhammedan dynsaty in Sind, failed. Three centuries later, the utmost efforts of two great Musalman invaders from the north-west only succeeded in annexing a small portion of the frontier Punjab Province between 977 and 1176 A.D. The Hindu power in Souther India was not completely broken till the battle of Talikot in 1565; and within a hundred years, in 1650, the great Hindu revival had commenced which under the form of Maratha confederacy, was destined to break up the Mughal Empire in India. That Empire, even in the north of India, had only been consolidated by Akbar's policy of incorporating Hindu chiefs into his government(1556-1605). Up to Akbar's time, and even during the earlier years of his reign a series of Rajput wars had challenged the Muhammadan supremacy. In less than two centuries after his death, the succesor of Akar was a puppet in the hand of the Hindu marathas at Delhi. The popular notion that India fell an easy prey to the Musalmans is opposed to the historical facts. Muhammadan rule in India consists of a series of invasions and partial conquests, during eleven centuries, from Usman's raid, circ.647, to Ahmad Shah's tempest of invasion in 1761 A.D. At no time was Islam triumphant throughout the whole of India. Hindu dynasties always ruled over large areas. At the height of the Muhammadan power, the hindu princes paid tribute, and sent agents to the Imperial court. But even this modified supremacy of Delhi lasted for little over a century (1578-1707). Before the end of that brief period the Hindus had begun the work of reconquest. The native chivalry of Rajputana was closing in upon Delhi from the south; the religious confederation of the Sikhs was growing into a military power on the north-west. The Marathas had cobmined the fighting powers of the low-castes with the statesmen ship of the Brahmans, and were subjecting the Muhammadan kingdoms throughout all India to tribute. So far as can now be estimated, the advance of the English power at the beginning of the present century alone saved the Mughal Empire from passing to the Hindus.

role of rajputs/marathas/sikhs as vanguards of hindu religion. Contrast with Zoroastrians/Persia under Yezdezird during Invasion of Persia

This section is from THE PARSEES, THEIR HISTORY, MANNERS, CUSTOMS AND RELIION. DOSABHOY FRAMJEE. First Published LONDON: SMITH, ELDER and CO., 65, CORNHILL: 1858. [Page 3]

Suffice it to say, that with Yezdezird, the forty-fifth king in te descent of the race of Kaimurs, ended the ancient Persian monarchy. The neighbouring and wealthy empire of Persia presented too tempting a prize to the fanatic and ambitious spirit, evoked by Mahomed, to remain long unmolested , and in the middle of the seventh century of the Christian era, the Arab sword invaded Persia, under Caliph Omar. In a fierce and well-contested battle with the Persians at the village of Nahavand, about fifty miles from the ancient city of Ecbatana, the fate of the empire was decided.....Yezdezird, abandoning his kingdom as lost, fled the country; and after wandering in solitude and disguise for a period of ten years, was at last treachersously slain by a miller to whom the secret of his identity had been confided (651 AD)..... Thus on the conquest of Persia, the Mahomedan soldiers of the Caliphat of Baghdad traversed the length and breadth of the country, presenting the alternative of death or the Koran, and compelling the conquered nation to accept the one or the other. By these oppressive and cruel means, a hundred thousand persons are said to have daily abjured the faith of there forefathers; and the fire-temples and other sacred places were destroyed or converted into mosques.

Same intensity of conversion by sword could not occur in India because of rajputs,marathas and sikhs at different periods of last 1100 years.

--DPSingh 13:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

DPSingh, the sources you're using are more than one hundred years old and both outdated and biased. It is simply not true that the earliest Muslims forced conquered peoples to convert. They prevented conversions. They wanted the new subjects paying jizyah, the tax on dhimmis, and suspected would-be converts of tax evasion. See The Formation of Islam, by Berkey (2003). Zora 18:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

A lot of our holy texts are older than a few thousand years as well. With your twisted logic, I would consider them as junk? There is ample evidence of how this religion has and even today is spreading. Do you want us to show newspaper reports now? Ss india 10:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Zhora you are not making any sense. I am not sure if you are intentionally spreading false information. By not believing facts presented by Hindus and Parsis (followers of Zoraster. Dosabhoy Framjee is a Parsi) about what atrocities happened to there religion and there people and having taken sides with Muslims even when there is overwhelming evidence against them i.e. mass sacle temple defiling in Persia and India, mass conversions and slaughters suggests that you are doing all this with a very definite intention. You can keep your garbage history to the confines of your gray cells. You are the just like the vandal described in the second link.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/05/wikipedia.rules.ap/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/11/wikipedia.ap/index.html

--DPSingh 10:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Khurram,

I think somebody on these pages made a remark saying that "Why burden the remaining Rajputs

with the baggage of reconciling the converts". This I believe sums up the position of Hindu

side quite accurately. The thing is that in the past some of the Rajputs converted, under

whatever circumstances, to Islam. Now are the Hindu Rajputs supposed to mangle their own

glorious history which they have practically written in their blood, lest it offends the

fine sensibilities of Muslims who left the samaj centuries ago? Think from the perspective

of the other side for once, and you will understand the emotions involved. The thing is that

whoever left, left and was quickly forgotten. Hindu Rajputs never had any marital

relationships with the converts, the criterion which fairely accurately draws the boundaries

of the kinship in the subcontinet.

Rajput ethos are deeply rooted in the Raj-Dharma ideals of Hinduism, where a King is

protector and provider of his subjects, not a jehad waging fanatic. Try as I might, I can't

see how can we accomodate "Muslim Mujahid Royals" in this definition. Tomorrow, if some

Rajput goes ahead and become a follower of fancy new age religions like Scientology, I

wonder how shall we modify the definition of Rajputs to accomode such fellow. ___________________________________________________________________________________________

" It is simply not true that the earliest Muslims forced conquered peoples to convert." @Zora: Again that is YOUR POV. So a Hawaiian who isnt even remotely related to India tells us that our history is false and my ancestors were bigoted. Miss infact the history books written in 19th century give us an accurate reading as in those days Muslim writers openly gloated about the conversions as opposed to quiet sanitising of Islamic history these days. Not everyting you read is right. I'm sick of people quoting Karen Armstrong and her ilk. My people were forcibly converted, made to pay jizyah in their own land AND they fought that. I'm proud of it. Though i dont blame modern day Muslims for that, but i firmly believe in telling the truth even if its "uncomfortable" for some people. the onus is on Muslims of South Asia to accept the fact that many of their ancestors did convert under duress and compulsion and move on.

अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 17:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Samething Again

Wow it was not a great catch-up to do. First about the word "Dharma", please tell me when was the first written account of Bhagvad Gita produced? (I am talking about the research proven version)

Secondly, Rajputs have a glorious history, no matter whether they are Hindu or Muslim or Sikh. Muslim Rajputs never left the samaj, they were the very part of it and they still are. They are not less accomplished than their Hindu counterparts. Had there been the case that whoever was left, left and quickly forgotten then how was it that the Muslim Rajputs kept on ruling, in the very heart of Rajasthan for centuries and were treated and accepted as legitimate Rajputs? Why wasn't there an outcry at that time? Why isn't there any documented proof that upon leaving the religion one ceases to be a Rajput? Why still Sikhs are being considered as Rajputs although they follow a different religion that clearly defies Hinduism and its Verna Caste System? Jihad waging fanatic? My friend, it is again sad to hear that from you. Not every war that a Muslim king fought was a Jihad just like not every war that a Hindu Rajput waged was a Dharma. Who do you think was evil and who was a saint when Marathas attacked Rajputs? Who was good and who was invader when Rajputs signed treaties with the British to fight agaisnt Marathas?

I think you are modifying the definition of Rajput when you are trying to say that only Hindus can be Rajputs since this has never been the case. I have kept on saying it again and again that please provide me with at least one true historical proof that denies the existence of Muslim Rajputs in the history of the Sub-Continent.

A lot of my friends do talk about Hinduism. Can you tell me what is Hinduism? When was it given its name "Hinduism"? What is the meaning of Hindu? Where did this word come from? When was it that the followers of a particular religion started being called "Hindu"? The term Hindu Rajput didn't exist before nineteenth century.

And finally, I regret that people still are bringing Islam into all this and are saying things that are not related to this article. What the ideology of Islam is about different things is a separate issue. Those who can't win in the battlefield keep on crying and whining afterwards and there is a lot of literature where you can find it. The land belongs to the one who earns it. If India or Persia did not belong to Muslims then Rajputs were not natives of India, how can this land by theirs? The natives of India are the drawidian people who were pushed to the South by the invading armies of Aryans.

Finally, no matter how much you hate Islam and Muslims, the existence of Muslim Rajputs in India is a fact that has clearly been recorded in history and there is nothing that anyone can do about it and without a fair mention of them, there can not be a neutral and knowledgeable encyclopedia.

Zora, I am sorry that you are facing such hardship on this page but I can only admire your commitment to the truth. Thank You.

خرم Khurram 20:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Fellow rajputs ignore Muslims

from now on. Though make sure you all maintain the version of rajput page that is endorsed by all rajputs. I have just saved the page to Shivraj Singh's last save and you all make sure to do the same.

--DPSingh 07:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Hello everyone...

Im posting on this page after a long time...Initially there was an individual called Kartavya Virya Singh Jamval who posted a lot of original , validated information about rajput history etc. Unfortunately some westerners here (and later on some muslims ) started throwing muck on his posts inspite of him giving validated citations and reasonings !

I hope he comes back to post ! I sorely miss his knowledge and attitude !He would have ripped apart all these allah-ist freaks.

Now i see in that span of time, there has been a veritable war here !

here are his posts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive01)

although I would like to also mention that the main page has many grammatical and spelling mistakes and one small error -->Suryavanshi trace there lineage to Lord Rama, Somvanshi to Som and Agnivanshi orginated from fire. Yaduvanshi trace there lineage to Lord Krishan.

Actually the suryavanshi trace their lineage to the vedic Sun God surya (the line of which Lord Ram was also born in.)

anyways' I agree with DP singh above..There's no need to argue with the camels. a waste of time...We just have to ensure that their habit of manipulating facts is controlled.( and the main page is not tampered with .)

I urge someone or anyone who is interested to keep having a look here from time to time to check if the content has been changed.

As Swami Vivekananda once indicated too much filth has been thrown at the feet of the pitrubhoomi..its time to throw it back.

Glory to Bharatvarsha. regards, Shonan talpade. ( 13 DEC 2005 )

Shonan,

Go ahead and correct info about Suryavansh and any spelling, grammatical errors also.

--DPSingh 09:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Thank you Another topic I would like to discuss is about the true story of how Prithiviraj Chauhan actually chased ghori back to Afghanistan and killed him there. Unfortunately Chauhan died of his injuries and was buried near kabul. how come we are never taught all this in schools ?

read the story here.

http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2005/08/29964.php

Shonan,

Go ahead and create an account for yourself. Chand Bardai had a famous couplet about the shot that killed ghori. Let us discuss Prithviraj more. One of the greatest rajput king.

-- DPSingh 10:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks .will do. If you could kindly also have a look at the Kshatriya discussion page on wikipedia. Some nut has been making the most hilarious and ridiculous statements about kshatriya-ism and also Buddha and rajput origins.

I disciplined his fantasies so far. LOL .His arguments are rather hilarious. I'm waiting for his next set of confused lies . provides for a good laugh !

--shonan

---

To Mr.D.P Singh No need to be crestfallen ,Dear Dp Singh...I took the time to read all the vast camel talk in the previous archives ( all those khurrams,zoras,wisesabres etc etc ).

Let them start their jihad again..I'm waiting..IEk Ek ko seedha nahin kiya na..( woh bhi fursat mein )....watch the fun. ;)

Jai Shri Ram. Shonan Talpade 13 DEC 2005

---

Please contribute positively

DP and Shonan, can you please contribute to the article instead of indulging into Personal Attacks?

خرم Khurram 15:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

DPSingh, if you don't cut out the disparaging remarks and the incitements to edit-warring, I am afraid you will find yourself in violation of Wikipedia policy. Your actions are clearly disruptive, and if you don't alter your behaviour, you will find that you may be blocked from editing for disruption of Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 16:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

in case that was unclear, I am referring to comments along the lines of "Fellow rajputs ignore Muslims from now on. Though make sure you all maintain the version of rajput page that is endorsed by all rajputs." above. dab (ᛏ) 18:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

History 101

Bhagvad Gita was written after King Ashoka and Kuran was written before Muhammad was born. What next? All rajputs are descendants of Muhammads relatives and invaded India and converted to Hinduism?

Shivraj Singh 19:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dbachmann. forgive me for speaking when u havent referred to me..but noone here ( especially us true hindu rajputs) are disrupting anything . so there's no need to sound condescending .Please direct your ban threats elsewhere. --shonan.

WP:NPOV. being a Hindu Rajput or a Muslim doesn't count for anything on WP. All that counts are your sources, so why do you keep talking about editors instead about their sources? We will not turn this article into a self-aggrandizing piece. Yes, most of the bhagavad gita was most likely written after Ashoka. Only, it is difficult to date, because there are no historical records of the period. dab (ᛏ) 07:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Dab, Do you know what language Gita was written in? Do you also know what language was in use during Ashoka's reign? Figure that out and then we will talk. There is nothing like muslim rajput. A lie has no place in an encyclopedia.

--DPSingh 12:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I know the answers to your questions, and any schoolboy can look them up on Ashoka and Bhagavad Gita. What is your point? Original Sanskrit texts are composed to this day. Surely you don't claim the Puranas are earlier than Ashoka, for example? Your withering contempt has very little effect on people here, and if you think that the Gita was written in 2000 BC, I can also believe that you would argue that non-Hindus are non-human, or that humanity originated in the IVC (or on the North Pole, as the case may be). dab (ᛏ) 20:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

For all the Muslim rajput jihadi brigade

Ever heard of calling a spade a spade ..thats not a personal attack. ( likewise bullshitters should be called bullshitters)

now what are your next arguments ? 1)The entire world lived in ignorance before muhammed ( and thenon-muslim world till date does !) 2)All rajputs were or are allah's faithful servants ? 3)Islam will rule the world. blah blah blah ? The problem with your mentality is that you want the honour of a rajput identity with the garnishing of islamism on it.

sorry mate it doesnt work like that....anyways....I'm waiting for your next set of debates..You watch how i shall tear open your arguments.

try !

--shonan

---

"you want the honour of a rajput identity with the garnishing of islamism"

LOL. And they want two little cherries called Mujahidin and Ghazi on top of the Garnish.

btw, if somebody needs a little help in how to continue editing wikipedia even after getting banned, do drop me an email. I am as usual permanently outlawed by wikipedia and I keep coming back despite pakis crying to all those goras to keep me away.

-- sisodia the outlaw.

FIRST SET OF ANSWERS FOR KHURRAMS QUESTIONS

Can you tell me what is Hinduism?What is the meaning of Hindu? Where did this word come from?

The real term of the vast set of philosophies and cultures broadely classified as "hinduism" by the britishers is "Sanatan Dharma" or "Arya dharma"

The word Hindu is an ancient greek/persian nomenclature for the people living around the Indus river of yore. Indus--Sindhu--Hindu (aspirated H)

When was it given its name "Hinduism"? by the britishers maybe..Doesnt bother "hindus" anyways.

When was it that the followers of a particular religion started being called "Hindu"? Maybe around 5 B.C by the ancient greeks and persians who followed derivatives of the ancient vedic religion..Hindu was a kind of nickname for their neighbouring similar religious civilisation. (refer point 1)

Would muslims agree if some people call Islam as Mohammedanism LOL..likewise a mundane( and improper) name for the ancient vedic faith of sanatan dharma is "hinduism".

The term Hindu Rajput didn't exist before nineteenth century. Wrong again wise guy !..I have personally read references to rajaputto in the pali buddhist nikayas dated--circa 150 B.C ( Pali- rajaputto, Sanskrit-Rajaputra, Hindi-rajput)..as i have forgotten the particular scripture and verse no etc. I as yet cannot give a reference for that..

but as is written in the main page of wikipedia : Rajput, The term Rajputra has been used since the time of King Harshavardhana ,circa 5-6th Century A.D.

so Khurram..you were still wrong !

strike one !

Try again,son !

-Shonan

---

Shiv,

Again you are haughty to our religion and our Holy Book. You have been warned and advised multiple times to be civil and avoid from Personal Attacks. Please forgive me if I bring your work in attention to the administrators.

By providing the date of first written account of Bhagvad Gita, you have however, proved the point that the word "Dharma" appeared in the order of Ashoka before it did appear in Bhagvad Gita and this is the correct historical stand. If you want to dispute it then please dispute it with the researchers who have said it.

Shonan,

Thanks for your effort. You have, in a sense, proved my point that the word Hindu was not associated to the religion "Hinduism" before the nineteenth century. India was named after the river Indus and not after a religion and its inhabitants, be them Buddhist or others, were termed as Hindus by the outer world. Since the word itself was not associated with the religion before nineteenth century hence there was not mention of the term "Hindu Rajput" before that time. So my friend, in the ancient literature you will never find the word "Hindu Rajput" and this was my point.

خرم Khurram 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

_______________________________________

Khurram:> First about the word "Dharma", please tell me when was the first written account of Bhagvad Gita produced? (I am talking about the research proven version)

A link was already provided recording its mention back to the Vedas.

> Secondly, Rajputs have a glorious history, no matter whether they are Hindu or Muslim or Sikh.

If that is so, then the mention and insistence of a sep. Rajput-Muslim identity wouldn't have been necessary at all.

> Muslim Rajputs never left the samaj, they were the very part of it and they still are. They are not less accomplished than their Hindu counterparts. Had there been the case that whoever was left, left and quickly forgotten then how was it that the Muslim Rajputs kept on ruling, in the very heart of Rajasthan for centuries and were treated and accepted as legitimate Rajputs?

Who are these Muslim Rajputs? What are their contributions to Indian history, culture and overall to our national heritage? What are their achievements? Please list them.

> Why still Sikhs are being considered as Rajputs although they follow a different religion that clearly defies Hinduism and its Verna Caste System?

1. Sikhs are regarded as Rajputs because of their obvious contributions to safeguarding the dharm of our land and its people, maintaining a religious continuation with Vedic Hinduism. 2. Sikhism doesn't defy Hinduism; it refines it. 3. Sikhism doesn't negate caste-system, only caste-prejudices.

Sikhism says, "...though the Truth is one, the roads to it are many, and, therefore, the Sikhs pray that, "Let all be saved through whatever path can save them". Sikhism generally endorses the view of the medieval saint that, "the heart of so great a mystery cannot ever be reached by following one road only"." http://www.sikhlink.com/sikh/EssentialsofSikhism.htm

I hope that quote makes it all clear.

When Islam says "equality" - it means, every soul is Muslim, all are Muslims, the path of Allah is 'the' only 'true' path, and all those who disagree with that are sinners,

Now the real meaning. When Sikhism speaks against casteism, it is so that "all may be saved through whatever path can save them". Sikhism defends, encourages and promotes Vedic monism; it respects and upholds the right of different creeds, different natues; while when Islam says 'against casteism', it is a levelling down of everything to a sameness, everything is Muslim, the only road is Allah's and calls this "equality"! lol

What sheer narrow-minded tyranny.

Sikhism is soooooooo different from Islam. When Guru Nanak preached against caste, he said, a caste is not in name alone, a man is determined by his deeds; it believes in Karma - Shri Krishna already said this in the Bhagavad Gita. Because some Muslim saints are named, it doesn't make Sikhism Islamic!

> My friend, it is again sad to hear that from you. Not every war that a Muslim king fought was a Jihad...

What other ethics do they know of?

> ...just like not every war that a Hindu Rajput waged was a Dharma. Who do you think was evil and who was a saint when Marathas attacked Rajputs? Who was good and who was invader when Rajputs signed treaties with the British to fight agaisnt Marathas?

Atleast, we have a concept of Dharm that decides whether a war was Dharmic or not, but what does Islam know other than Jihad? which merely is the yardstick for 'justification' of war, and not justice. Don't commit the error of equating jihad with dharma.

> I have kept on saying it again and again that please provide me with at least one true historical proof that denies the existence of Muslim Rajputs in the history of the Sub-Continent. ...no matter how much you hate Islam and Muslims, the existence of Muslim Rajputs in India is a fact that has clearly been recorded in history and there is nothing that anyone can do about it and without a fair mention of them, there can not be a neutral and knowledgeable encyclopedia.

Question is, were/are they worthy of being documented at all?

> The term Hindu Rajput didn't exist before nineteenth century.

It didn't exist before the nineteenth century, because there was no need for its emphasis; it was already something implied. Pseudo-secularism made the emphasis necessary.

> The land belongs to the one who earns it.

"The true effectuation of a will does not come by coercion but by awakening the same willing in the other." [Heidegger]

Physical subjugation and mere coercion cannot tap into this archaic bond - of a land and its people; that awakening can only happen through some form of naturalness - like the Rajputs (whether their origins are foreign or native), they were able to form a "whole" with the rest of the people. This is clearly proven by the whole ethos of the Ashvamedha.

That's why Islam still requires the concept of a "tabligh"! lol, because even Islam found out, a land just doesn't belong to one who merely plunders and subjugates it.

When one awakens a "same willing" in another - that is proof of a natural kin-ship. A Rajput is thus called, 'son of a King' - kin and king share the same root. Its not merely about wearing crowns.

> And finally, I regret that people still are bringing Islam into all this and are saying things that are not related to this article. What the ideology of Islam is about different things is a separate issue.

If you really believe that, that religion is not important and is irrelevant, then why not discuss Rajputs as a whole? Why the need for the characterization 'Muslim'-Rajputs? But you can't right? Because they don't share a common historicity. Its a different class. And religion makes a difference.

Suryabandhu

---

Khurram..

So far In all the previous archives ,Almost all your ridiculous arguments have been rebuffed by various people here. When you get cornered..Instead of admitting your defeat,you very deftly try to eel-wriggle away and raise some other "controversial" topic...worse..You very shamelessly continue to keep arguing (to prove your real agenda--of Islamic supremacy)

well..two can play at this game.

you wrote---You have, in a sense, proved my point that the word Hindu was not associated to the religion "Hinduism" before the nineteenth century

You can't understand english or what ? Refer to my earlier answers to your post. Im not here to type the same explanations over and over. once again to answer your question..and please read carefully. THE WORD "HINDU" IS A GENERIC NAME GIVEN BY OUTSIDERS TO THE PEOPLE FOLLOWING THE VEDIC RELIGION ON THE BANKS OF THE INDUS RIVER. THE BRITISH/WESTERN NAME FOR THE ANCIENT INDIAN RELIGION AROSE IN THE 19TH CENTURY. THE NAME...THE TERM...THE TITLE for the religion ....( not the religion itself! )

i'll explain better. Now muslims claim that Adam was the first muslim and Allah was the God of Adam.( a view that christians and jews dont endorse )As you will agree Muslims froth at the mouth if others call them Mohammedans or Allah-ists.

The word mohammedan was also invented during the 19th century.....Muslims think that Islam came with the beginning of this world with Adam..the rest of the world believes it started in the 6-7th century AD

A very vulgar metaphor for this would be--Something like a son telling his father, that since we share the same surname and i'm more recent that you..I'm more perfect and ultimate than you !

A typical case of a self-created religion claiming dominion over previous philosophies. getting the point ?

So my friend, in the ancient literature you will never find the word "Hindu Rajput" and this was my point.

• First and Foremost ,I'm not your friend.

• secondly...likewise the term Muslim rajput is not endorsed by any branch of mohammedanism literature.

Its just a social and mental conditioning of muslims who's ancestors may have been rajput.

• Thirdly,the only ancient indian literature u may have read would be poorly translated scraps of text on webpages on the internet written by pseudo scholars.

Finally let's compare the creation myths. The rajputs believe that their origins lay with either the Sun,the Moon or fire. Muhammed in his final sermon declared that all humans were born of Adam & Eve.

So who is a muslim rajput then Khurram...Originally born of Adam & Eve or born of the force of Sun, moon or fire.?

certainly can't be a combination of both ( even for argument on myths )

Choose one option plainly without twisting or changing or distorting the topic.

answer that.

---shonan

Khurram

By now you are seeing so much of the love pouring forth from your rajput 'brothers'. There is obviously nothing that I see an agreement upon. You also cannot ignore sources, references that you do not like by calling them unreliable, outdated whatever. As DP, Suryabandhu were saying, there doesnt seem to be much sense arguing here. Please go work on the muslim rajput page, and I am quite sure no one here is interested in vandalising it. This page should not have that ugly "disputed" tag on it that you seem to like putting up wherever you go (Rajput clans for instance). Also putting the islam-hate angle to this is not going to help at all because that is not the point. Its a matter of how the term Rajput is taken in everyday life in the land where the rajputs originated and live today. You do not need to refer to some expert british "Indologists" (total sanskrit pandits all of them for sure) to prove how two particular communities live -- just see it for yourself!! Also you mentioned above that you want muslim rajputs to be mentioned as no less rajputs on this page...why??? if you believe you are on the right side why seek this stamp of approval from the hindus? Ofcourse if you enjoy getting it from all sides on this page, then carry on enjoying. Ss india 11:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll say it once again: stop the "Muslim" asides and all the nationalist Hindutva cruft. I don't know if "Muslim Rajputs" is warranted, but it will not become a pov fork: It will be a sub-article of this one, or merged back here. your clueless asides against "Indologists" and "Britishers" do not present you in a more favourable light. If you only care about the Hindu point of view, why don't you go and spread it on hi: to your heart's content. This is the English Wikipedia, and we defend the NPOV principle. Which means that academic resouces (in this case, Indologist literature) takes precedence. Your wholesale reverts will avail to nothing. If you would stop the namecalling, and begin addressing Khurram's valid concerns, arguing point by point rather than insisting on having your biased version all at once, you might make progress. If you don't have the patience to do this, you've come to the wrong place: the internet is big, and you can host your Rajput article at any free webspace provider. If there is a "Muslim Rajput controversy", document it (and no, links to this talkpage don't count), and we'll have a "Muslim Rajputs controversy" section. dab (ᛏ) 12:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

page should not have that ugly "disputed" tag on it that you seem to like putting up wherever you go (Rajput clans for instance). Also putting the islam-hate angle to this is not going to help at all because that is not the point. Its a matter of how the term Rajput is taken in everyday life in the land where the rajputs originated and live today. You do not need to refer to some expert british "Indologists" (total sanskrit pandits all of them for sure) to prove how two particular communities live -- just see it for yourself!! Also you mentioned above that you want muslim rajputs to be mentioned as no less rajputs on this page...why??? if you believe you are on the right side why seek this stamp of approval from the hindus? Ofcourse if you enjoy getting it from all sides on this page, then carry on enjoying. Ss india 11:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll say it once again: stop the "Muslim" asides and all the nationalist Hindutva cruft. I don't know if "Muslim Rajputs" is warranted, but it will not become a pov fork: It will be a sub-article of this one, or merged back here. your clueless asides against "Indologists" and "Britishers" do not present you in a more favourable light. If you only care about the Hindu point of view, why don't you go and spread it on hi: to your heart's content. This is the English Wikipedia, and we defend the NPOV principle. Which means that academic resouces (in this case, Indologist literature) takes precedence. Your wholesale reverts will avail to nothing. If you would stop the namecalling, and begin addressing Khurram's valid concerns, arguing point by point rather than insisting on having your biased version all at once, you might make progress. If you don't have the patience to do this, you've come to the wrong place: the internet is big, and you can host your Rajput article at any free webspace provider. dab (ᛏ) 12:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the de:: version as well...."Sie sind fast ausnahmslos Hindus." Means anything to you???? Or maybe go ahead and put the tag on there as well. Ss india 13:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

de: is of course no authoritative source, but your quote translates to "the vast majority of them are Hindu". Meaning that there is a non-Hindu minority. I don't think this is disputed. dab (ᛏ) 15:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Who the hell do you think you are? Muslims have been ranting and belitlling here for more months now and you come to defend them. Get lost.

--DPSingh 12:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Fellow Rajputs Sisodia,Shiv,Shonan,Ss,Suryabandhu

I dusted off ibbetson that someone has been citing here and on para 446 in census report of 1881 he mentions that Gaurwa rajputs of Gurgaon and Delhi, though retaining the title of Rajput in deference to the strength of caste feeling and because the change in their customs was too recent for the name to have fallen into disuse, had for all purposes of equality communion or intermarriage ceased to be rajputs since they took to Karewa or widow marriage. These muslims have been touting Ibbetson. When Gaurwa ceased to be rajputs just by changing the custom of widow-remarriage the retention of rajputi by conversion to islam is ape-shit.

--DPSingh 12:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

protection

I've protected the article until everybody shows some good faith and discusses edits point by point, rather than switching to and fro versions. "Good faith" will also include not separating "Hindu" and "Muslim" editors (many Wikipedians are neither, what do you say to that), but discussing the edits, sourcing every pov, rather than the editors. For example, if you don't like the statement "There are many Muslim Rajputs in Pakistan, and some also in India.", ask for an unambiguous source. If no source is brought forward, remove the statement. If there is a source, but you question its validity, quote the source, saying "According to XY, there are ...". I certainly don't endorse a "Muslim" version. I rather have no opinion on the matter, and I expect everyone to beat it out source by source, rather than this annoying edit-warring between a "Rajput" and a "Muslim" version. dab (ᛏ) 15:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Same old story mods sucking upto to Muslims and dismissing us a mere Hidutva guys. Do you even understand the concept of Hindutva, what has it got to do with this article? I'm an atheist and least likely to be associated with religious natonalism of any kind. You dont go through archives and say that we are solely responsible for this problem? Look at the archives and article history. These Hindu guys feel their identity is being attacked. Historically Rajputs have been seen as defenders of India (& Hinduism) against Islamic onslaught. Whilst Khurram is probably the most balanced Muslim editor here, Wisesabre has been making his POV edits to this artcile since August yet it is only Shiv who is blocked for 3RR violation. Mods explain yourself. अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 18:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

other then reverts, I had only tried twice or thrice to add my goth in list.

We ,in western Punjab not at all minority. My grandparents called them Rajputs and even there parents also. It seems to me that large amount of muslim rajput population lived in eastern punjab and in 1947 they migrated to Pakistan (my family is also from Hushiarpur,India). so there are few or no muslim rajputs in India. now new generation of India thinks that we are hijacking there identity. this isnt the case. even on graves here in Pakistan word rajput is written with there names.

I belive the only solution to this artice is we should learn to tolerate each other and we should give space to each others POV. Wisesabre 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

guys, meaning AMbroodEY: wrong approach. instead of accusing me of "sucking up to Muslims", discuss the topic. I don't care about Muslims or non Muslims. I don't care if you are an athest (but yes, I know the meaning of Hindutva). Come forward with your references and your proposed changes to the present "bare bones" article. Once the discussion gets to back on topic we can unprotect the article. I would prefer to do this sooner rather than later, since protection is considered harmful, I am afraid you'll have to stop talking about Muslim editors, and admins "sucking up to" Muslim editors. You'll have to begin an educated dialogue about Rajputs which happens to be the topic of this article. If you think I am abusing my privileges, you may leave a note on WP:AN/I and see what other admins think. Myself, I consider this a clear case of off-topic escalation, and temporary protection is one tool we have to get the discussion back on topic. Thus, propose your changes, civilly and succinctly, and we can talk about them. You have to understand that I don't care whether there are "Muslim Rajputs". I am trying to stop an edit war. I certainly think that Wisesabre will have to present references more verifiable than his grandparents if the "Muslim Rajputs" term is to stay. If Wisesabre can provide solid evidence that there is a substantial number of Muslims in western Punjab who self-describe as Rajputs, the article will record that. The article will also record that Hindu Rajputs reject the "Rajputness" of these people: if there is a dispute, the article will simply say there is a dispute, no need to edit-war. dab (ᛏ) 18:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Following sites confirm the existance of Muslim rajputs. Some links are from India also.[3] [4] [5]

even this dedicated site by hindus also admit that there are muslim rajputs [6] (I do not totally agree with this article)

Wisesabre 19:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The main (Muslim) Rajput tribes of the Punjab are: Bhatti, Punwar, Chauhan, Minhas, Tiwana, Noon, Ranghar, Khokhar, Ghakkar, Meo, Chib, Gheba, Jodhra, Janjua, Sial and Wattu etc.

that's fine, if your adversaries accept the evidence, but at this stage it would seem better to quote academic literature to be on the safe side. Sadly, your rajputsamaj article cites no sources other than [7], which in turn cites no sources at all. dab (ᛏ) 19:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This page has been protected many times and the reason no consensus has been reached is because muslims have not provided any references. I created parts of rajput page using 61 books which are all mentioned in the references section and each one of rajputs agree with this page only muslims do not.

Also muslims claims of calling themselves rajputs have been based on Ibbetson's book which Digivijay posted an excerpt from and shows these muslims are lying.

Census reports are useless because a clerk walks up to somebody's house and asks them what are you. They can reply I am xyz and that is what gets recorded. In this world anybody is free to claim anything but that does not mean others are obligated to accept there claims. Muslims cannot be accepted as rajputs. Period.

Shivraj Singh 21:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

DAB,

First of all thank you for intervention. The discussion on this page really needed some moderator input. Unfortunately most of my friends here have put more stress on Islam and Muslims than on the actual topic. The term Rajput has always been independent of one's religion and this fact is evident by Sir Denzil Ibbetson's "Tribes and Castes of Punjab and NWFP", a report that was based upon the 1883 census of India. This was the very first documented evidence regarding different castes in India, their customs and their population in different areas. This work marked the first most authenticated effort on the subject and is accepted as an authority among all the researchers of the subject across the globe. In his work and specifically in the section regarding Rajputs he wrote that changing religion does not change one's caste in India. In his work he mentioned the localities of Rajputs alongwith their population with respect to religion in a particular area and used the references provided by the Muslim, Sikh and Hindu Rajputs to research the origins of different goths and the caste itself. The official records of Government of India back up this fact before, during and after the British rule. During the partition, most Muslim Rajputs migrated to Pakistan, as they were mostly inhabitants of Punjab and Rajasthan, the adjacent territories to Pakistan. We can somehow attribute the lack of knowledge about Muslim Rajputs to the migration stated above but any scholar and researcher on the subject shall know about their existence and identity.

My friend AMbroodEY represented the POV of our Hindu counterparts by saying that they feel as if their identity is being threatened but we, the Muslim Rajputs also feel that our identity is being threatened when it is said that a Rajput can only be a Hindu. What myself and other Muslim Rajputs are saying is that the Rajputs, be them Muslims, Sikhs or Hindus have always been termed and treated as Rajputs regardless of their religion and this is a proven historical fact. It is for this fact that I think we should not had this discussion to begin with since from the very first recorded history of the caste itself there is absolutely no evidence that Muslims cannot be, or for that matter, are not Rajputs.

خرم Khurram 20:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)