Jump to content

Talk:Rajput: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 220: Line 220:


::::The Janwar article was deleted. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 06:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
::::The Janwar article was deleted. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 06:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2015 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Rajput|answered=no}}
<!-- Begin request -->

Rajputs rose to prominence from the 9th to 12th century CE. Cite: [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/490157/Rajput Encyclopaedia Britannica] 04:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/188.166.126.54|188.166.126.54]] ([[User talk:188.166.126.54|talk]]) 04:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:01, 17 September 2015

Template:Castewarningtalk

Rajput Mughal Alliance

+ + Beginning in 1561, the Mughals actively engaged the Rajputs in warfare and diplomacy. [1] + Toward the end of the 16th century, the Mughal emperor Akbar entered into a series of alliances [2][3][4] [5] with numerous Rajput ruling houses, arranging marriages with Rajput princesses for himself and for his heirs. Mughal-Rajput marriages continued until the early 18th century, bringing many Rajput states into the imperial fold without costly military subjugation. The Rajput practice of giving daughters to the Mughal emperors in return for recognition as nobility and the honour of fighting on behalf of the Empire originated in this arrangement and thus the Mughals were often able to assert their dominance over Rajput chiefs in north India without needing to physically intimidate them.[6][7]

Furthermore, the Rajput relations with Mughal were consolidated by marriage and blood ties; the Akbar's successors, Jahangir and Shah Jahan were sons of Rajput Princesses is therefore not insignifant.[8]


Political Effect of Alliances

The political effect of these alliances was significant.[4] The interaction between Hindu and Muslim nobles in the imperial court resulted in exchange of thoughts and blending of the two cultures. Further, newer generations of the Mughal line represented a merger of Mughal and Rajput blood, thereby strengthening ties between the two. As a result, the Rajputs became the strongest allies of the Mughals, and Rajput soldiers and generals fought for the Mughal army under Akbar, leading it in several campaigns including the conquest of Gujarat in 1572.[9]


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

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


More books--

NO link between Vedic Kshatriyas(old Rajas) and medival Rajputs in many cases.[10]


The story of agnikula is not mentioned at all in the original version of the Raso preserved in the Fort Library at Bikaner.[11]

According to the book,a glimpse of medieval Rajasthan by Naravane & Malik the Agnikula theory for Rajputs was invented in 16th century to legitimise the “conversion” of foreign people as pure Kshatriyas.[10]

In the book by Satish Chandra,[12]


In fact, according to a number of scholars, the agnikula clans were originally Gurjaras (or Gurjars)[13] and [[Chauhan] was prominent clan of the Gurjars (or Gujjars).[14] Several scholars including D. B. Bhandarkar, Baij Nath Puri and A. F. Rudolf Hoernle believe that the Pratihara were a branch of Gurjars.[15][16][17][18][19][20] Prithviraj Chauhan,according to several scholars, was a Gurjar.[21][22] Historian Sir Jervoise Athelstane Baines states that the Gurjars were forefathers of the Sisodiyas.[23]


, Rajputana was essentially the country of the Gurjars.[24][25] Historian R. C. Majumdar explained that the region was long known as Gurjaratra (Gurjar nation), early form of Gujarat, before it came to be called Rajputana,later in the Mughal period,16th century.[26]

References

  1. ^ Richards, John F. (1996). The Mughal Empire. Cambridge University Press. pp. 17–21. ISBN 978-0521566032.
  2. ^ Imaging Sound: An Ethnomusicological Study of Music, Art, and Culture in Mughal India Bonnie C. Wade + University of Chicago Press, 1998 - Art - 276 pages
  3. ^ Against History, Against State Shail Mayaram Orient Blackswan, 01-Jan-2006 - 320 pages
  4. ^ a b Chandra, Satish (2005). Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals Part - II. Har-Anand Publications. pp. 105–106. ISBN 978-8124110669.
  5. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/490092/Rajasthan/46056/History
  6. ^ Wadley, Susan Snow (2004). Raja Nal and the Goddess: The North Indian Epic Dhola in Performance. Indiana University Press. pp. 110–111. ISBN 9780253217240.
  7. ^ Sadasivan, Balaji (2011). The Dancing Girl: A History of Early India. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. pp. 233–234. ISBN 9789814311670.
  8. ^ Dana Leibsohn, Jeanette Favrot Peterson (2012). "Seeing Across Cultures in the Early Modern World". Art. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 89–90. Retrieved 21 October 2014.
  9. ^ Sarkar 1984, pp. 38–40
  10. ^ a b M. S. Naravane, V. P. Malik. The Rajputs of Rajputana: a glimpse of medieval Rajasthan. APH Publishing, 1999. ISBN 8176481181, 9788176481182. Pg 20
  11. ^ S.R. Bakshi. Early Aryans to Swaraj. p. 325. It has been reported that the story of agnikula is not mentioned at all in the original version of the Raso preserved in the Fort Library at Bikaner. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ Satish, Chandra (1996). Historiography, Religion, and State in Medieval India. Har-Anand Publications. ISBN 8124100357.
  13. ^ Dasharatha Sharma (1975). Early Chauhān dynasties: a study of Chauhān political history, Chauhān political institutions, and life in the Chauhān dominions, from 800 to 1316 A.D. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 280. ISBN 978-0-8426-0618-9. According to a number of scholars, the agnikula clans were originally Gurjaras.
  14. ^ Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (1834). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 1999. Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland. p. 651. By that marriage Harsha had contracted an alliance with the dominant race of the Gurjaras, of whom the chohans were a prominent clan.
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference Jamanadas was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ K.M. Munshi (1943). The Glory that was Gurjardesh.
  17. ^ Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (1834). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland. Cambridge University Press for the Royal Asiatic Society. p. 648. The Parihars (Pratiharas), as Mr. Bhandarkar rightly points out, were one of the divisions of the Gurjaras.
  18. ^ Chopra, Pran Nath (2003). A comprehensive history of ancient India. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. p. 196. ISBN 81-207-2503-4, ISBN 978-81-207-2503-4. Al-Masudi who visited his (Gurjara mahipala) court, also refers to the great power and resources of the Gurjara pratihara rules of Kannauj.
  19. ^ Bhandarkar, Devadatta Ramakrishna (1989). Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture. Asian Educational Services. p. 64. ISBN 8120604571.
  20. ^ Baij Nath Puri, The history of the Gurjara-Pratihāras,Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1986, pp.1–3
  21. ^ Dasharatha Sharma (1975). Early Chauhān dynasties: a study of Chauhān political history, Chauhān political institutions, and life in the Chauhān dominions, from 800 to 1316 A.D. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 280. ISBN 0842606181, ISBN 9780842606189. According to a number of scholars, the agnikula class were originally Gurjaras.
  22. ^ Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (1834). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Volume 1999. Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland. p. 651. By that marriage Harsha had contracted an alliance with the dominant race of the Gurjaras, of whom the chauhans were a prominent clan.
  23. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sir Jervoise Athelstane Baines 1912 31 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  24. ^ Sir Jivanji Jamshedji Modi (1930). Dr. Modi memorial volume: papers on Indo-Iranian and other subjects. Fort Printing Press. p. 521. Rajputana was essentially the country of the Gurjaras, Gujarat came to be called after...
  25. ^ Asiatic Society of Bombay (1904). Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Volume 21. p. 416. But this much is certain that Rajputana was essentially the country of the Gurjaras {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  26. ^ Cite error: The named reference R.C. Majumdar 1994 263 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Rajput subordination

Neither this change nor the original text really reflects the source. What the source says is as follows:

The Timurids won the loyalty of thousands of Rajput warriors, generation after generation. The publicly proclaimed devotion of these prestigious chiefs had its impact on hundreds of lesser Rajput lineages who controlled localities across northern and central India. Akbar pre-empted the possibility of the rise of another Rajput coalition similar to that which his grandfather had faced at Kanua in 1527. The Rajputs in turn placed themselves in a much wider political arena. Instead of being caught up in local internecine conflicts, they became imperial generals, statesmen and high administrators. Instead of being content with the produce of the semi-arid lands of Rajasthan, they diverted streams of wealth from the largess of the empire towards their homelands.

What we seem to have here is a situation that is all too common for this Hindu/Muslim palaver. It needs to stop, and people need to use the sources properly. The Richards source neither justifies the word "most" nor the word "some". The first is quite simply not said; the latter seems to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the significance, or else a mistake based on original research rather than reading the source itself. The correct word should probably be "many" and the sentence should refer to Akbar also because it seems that things were different a couple of generations earlier.

This article is subject to discretionary sanctions and I won't hesitate to call in the admins if the abuses continue. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush you seem to deliberately write less of Rajputs. You removed Surashtra from top which clearly shows your bias against Rajputs. The edit request above is a very sensible point but you wouldn't do it because you are biased. Kindly if you can check dictionary, 'some' means unspecified number or fairly large number, so you can't criticise that edit of me. As far as 'close relationship' is concerned , it's again unsuitable word, the precise word according to source is 'alliance'. I frankly think you need a sanction. Decentscholar (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'many' means large but indefinite number, and its not indefinite due to the use of word 'thousands', so , word 'some' which means unspecified number or fairly large number is suitable word. Because how many thousands its not specified. The word Many would sound like 'unlimited numbers'. Decentscholar (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Some" could be two. I'm not the one pushing a pov here - I'm not even Asian and I have no horse in this race. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter you are Asian or not. Your horse is implied and I can see that. Some can't be two, three, five, or seven, if it was then there would have been no need of word some. Some means unspecified, and clearly source isn't specifying, or we take other meaning of some it would be fairly large number. At least word some isn't POV like the word 'many', its indeed exaggeration. Decentscholar (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted you again. You cannot keep going away for a few days and then reappearing to assert your position in the article. The latest developments in this thread are particularly worrying because it now looks like you may be breaching copyright also. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copy right violation. how can you say this without reading the source, and you've restored a version which is incompatible with the source. Just few edits ago you were not to rely on Britannica but now you can relay because its about edit warring with me. The edit which I did is in accordance with the source mentioned. Its ironic that you are more interested in undoing the edits rather than carefully reading the source. Decentscholar (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Rajput Mughal Marriages

Extended content driven by POV-pushing WP:SPAs and socks - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it again and again face a revert, if anything related to Rajput-Mughal marital alliances is added. Numerous marriages took place to safeguard the said alliance. Is the relation like marriage, irrelevant or a thing to be hidden? Is the marriage, a thing of dishonour? Are we neutrally projecting the facts or can the historical facts be changed, if we do so???? Dear Decentscholar, you reverted it without any discussion. Why? are your edits neutral or simply these are advertising for Rajput glory. Please reply--- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 19:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I know that the present-day Rajputs do not like to be reminded of their Hindu ancestors marrying Muslims etc but, protest as much as they like about TV series/movies etc, their sensitivities count for nothing on Wikipedia. There were many marriage alliances between Rajput leaders' families and those of the Mughals. The sources are there, the reasons usually related to power-plays and indeed the Sisodias of Mewar made it a particular point to claim that, unlike their peers, they did not engage in the practice.
You don't like this? Tough. You have some reliable sources that contest the statements already made? That's fine: bring them on per WP:NPOV. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajput334: you are just emulating what Decentscholar (talk · contribs) was doing regarding this marriage stuff, both in your actions and also in your arguments (such as this). Please read this talk page and note that Decentscholar's exercises in semantics never got consensus and that they ended up being blocked. That last edit of yours doesn't even make sense: if "few" must be used then it should read A few. - Sitush (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then make it 'A few', since some isn't appropriate word for the reason I've told u. Rajput334 (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I will not. I was merely pointing out that it makes no sense. The fact remains that "a few" doesn't really cover "17 out of 40" - we could say "nearly half" but I'd be happy with "some". Like I said, this issue has been discussed before with one of your fellow-travellers. I'm coming to the conclusion that you should not edit the article at all because of your declared conflict of interest (you even have {{User Rajput}} on your user page) and your obvious desire to sanitise the article. - Sitush (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm a Rajput but I do have right to edit this page. Actually you have misunderstood '17 out of 40'. The word 'A few' will be for Rajputs not for 17 out of 40, Actually 40 is claimed to be the total number of marriages Akbar accomplished, There were hundreds of Noble Rajputs and 17 would be 'A few' indeed. You were going to do it half?? lol..... At least see what it is about. It clearly reveals you are not aware of what you are talking about. Rajput334 (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajput334: Please listen to Sitush's advice and be aware that discretionary sanctions apply to this and all related articles.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rajput334, with this edit you are now battling against me, Philg88 and quite probably Mahensingha. I can live with Philg88's "A number of ..." compromise. Please will you look above at my comment about the Sisodias - it is a blue link and if you click on it then you will see that the intermarriage was so common that the Sisodias made a big issue of out not intermarrying: they felt that it set them apart and somehow made them more legitimate than the other Rajput communities. - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, if you want to talk overall about Rajputs then use words a few, or if you want to use word ' A number of' which means many, then do it this way A number of Rajasthani Rajputs (or Rajputs of Rajasthan), I also have consensus of user Ghatus on this point [here], i would look for citation but ::::If you can provide me a citation of Punjabi Rajputs, Sindhi Rajputs, Kashmiri Rajputs, Gujarati Rajputs etc marrying Mughal emperors then I would agree with you.

Rajput334 (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read WP:CONSENSUS. It is not a vote. Neither you nor Ghatus, who is also known for pov-pushing, have come up with a policy-compliant reason for us to do as you request. As I have said above, you need to bring on the sources to support your position - the burden is yours, not mine. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using the word "few" indicates suppressing the fact. In my opinion "Some" shall be preferred. The fact is fact, It is on records throughout the history and curtaining it here does not bring the fruits. I think we all shall accept the realities without being so rigid on the matters well supported with the reliable sources.--MahenSingha (Talk) 15:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush:, What point of view did I push? Why is this sweeping statement? I have no love lost for Rajputs. You better think over yourself. BTW, I found point in user Rajput334's argument. I would better suggest you to name those 17 Rajput princesses you mentioned or give the link with names. Every confusion would be clear then. I am yet to find any non-Rajputana name (though there is a bundela name with roots in rajputana) Finally,personal attack shows intellectual incapacity. Ghatus (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ghatus, 17 out of 40 is not at all well reasoned to be accepted as Authentic. It was royal arrangement so there must be other citations, cite them or I suggest to remove this statement. 202.69.15.155 (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farukhshiyar married daughter of Ajit Singh Rathore, Akbar married daughter of Bharamall.See page 272-275, Akbar married Rajput princess of Amber, Jodhur, Jaisalmer. Akbar's son salim married princess of Amber, Gwalior, Bikaner, Jaisalmer, little tibet etc. (salim had 8 or more wives who were from Rajputs from Rajputana and other princely states.see page 127-153--MahenSingha (Talk) 14:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That means they were all from Rajasthan, insert the word Rajputs of Rajasthan in the article then.2A03:2880:1010:DFF5:FACE:B00C:0:8000 (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please find Gwalior state is not in Rajasthan. It was ruled by Tomar Rajputs. More over the term "Rajasthan" came into existence much later. Also, the Rajputs after becoming relatives of Mughals were given charges of various locations spread through out on the Indian map ruled by Mughals, who were centred at Agra. The Rajputs of Jaipur under Mughal supremacy were made independent rulers for the region from Jaipur to Malwa.--MahenSingha (Talk) 14:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes u r right, Gwalior was part of Rajputana not Rajasthan. and it was called Rajputana then. so insert Rajputs of Rajputana. 2A03:2880:3010:6FF0:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, neither Gwalior nor Tibbet or Agra was ever part of Rajputana. Kindly go through the Political maps of Medieval India. The map for Rajputana:See here Gwalior was itself a state. Presently also it is in Madhya Pradesh and not in Rajasthan I suggest in place of unnecessarily pushing your POV, its better to study the facts. I find nothing objectionable in the article. Given above are just examples there are many more Rajput Mughal marriage alliances which can be quoted here. Please try to understand.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV effected article

In the section Rajput kingdoms, it is written that ruling sisodia family of mewar stood apart from other Rajput clans. The editors had written this with a bad intention, because it is very obviously implying that all Rajput clans except sisodias married their daughter to Mughals!! this is indeed POV pushing. furthermore, the biased editor also rebuffs the neutral source of Britannica who use the word 'some' for 'Rajput-Mughal' marriages, but the editor says, 'a number of', so that editor's intention are visible as being full of malice. how ironic it is that the editor sitush also appears to say that there were only 18 Rajput clans out of which 17 married daughters to mughals and 1 clan sisodia stood apart. It is very well known that there were so many clans and still are. I've asked Britannica to further update on this issue. if they do so, I'll use Britannica and other secondary source to undo the biased editor Sitush. and if he or his follower user Mahamsingha tried to edit war this time, I would report them and even dispute resolution process will be initiated. 2A03:2880:3010:6FF5:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what it says. It refers to the Sisodia claim. We've discussed all this at length recently, so it might be wise to read some of the earlier comments here. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't mention sisodia claim. can u put here the exact lines you are relying upon. because otherwise I disagree with you as well. Rmkop (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the "Rajput Mughal marriages" section that immediately precedes this one. A whole bunch of sockpuppets have just been blocked for pushing this rubbish and I'm not inclined to explain it all in detail yet again. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the section "Rajput-Mughal marriages" but I'm still not satisfied. Actually there is no discussion on this point, you have mentioned this once but there is no discussion, The source you are using for this doesn't say that sisodias claim to stand apart from all other Rajput clans, then why are you writing this? and this inarguably is a POV pushing, especially because it implies that except sisodias, all other Rajput clans intermarried Mughals. Rmkop (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better? - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
now its clear. Rmkop (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Janwar (Rajputs)

seems to be a part of broader caste Shrikanthv (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no need to merge unless reliable sources turn up. A last name does not make a caste, so a WP:PROD would be the usual course. - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sitush. Rmkop (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Janwar article was deleted. - Sitush (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2015

Rajputs rose to prominence from the 9th to 12th century CE. Cite: Encyclopaedia Britannica 04:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

188.166.126.54 (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&oldid=681424538"