Jump to content

Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by White Horserider (talk | contribs) at 09:29, 20 June 2021 (→‎Legacy section of article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

The Great Rajput King Prithviraj Chauhan

Please don't edit this page because it's soure are fully verified by historian

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

2401:4900:4112:9935:A144:A684:F55B:132E (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 13:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

Please don't edit-war and discuss possible grievances TrangaBellam (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy section of article

@Shinjoya, Abhishek0831996, Ratnahastin, Ranadhira, and Sajaypal007: Due to consistent revert, revert and revert, I brought this issue at talk page; main issue here is about a statement in legacy section. i.e.

Prithviraj's dynasty was classified as one of the Rajput clans in the later period, including in Prithviraj Raso, although the "Rajput" identity did not exist during his time

What I did is adding contrasting views from atleast 8-9 learned scholars who staged Rajput existence as a caste group since seventh century. (Some staged it in 12th century; anyway before reign of Prithviraja-III. Minhaj-us Siraj a historian who lived in Ghur region (in same time) also mentioned Prithviraj as a Rajput king who was riding an horse, this statement is academic work of Upinder Singh published in Oxford University Press.

But some senior editors and admins are hell bent on removing contrasting scholary views (I presented full quotes for verification too). Do note that I never removed any existing content but just add much more. (To make it neutral)

I got a solution; Since editors doesn't seem very happy about contrasting views to make it neutral then remove this statement from legacy section as well. I read history from Persian sources from last 30 years and nearly all scholars staged Rajput emergence as a community since Harsha's death.

I pinged all intersted editors regarding the topic; make sure to give your inputs here. Thank you very much. White Horserider (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can discuss removing the "although the Rajput identity did not exist during his time" bit. But what you were doing was adding a huge chunk of irrelevant content and references that don't even discuss the subject of the article. Your additions don't belong in the article lead (or even the article body): they belong at Rajput. utcursch | talk 23:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to Utcursch; If we can't add contrasting scholary views from top publishers. Then surely; I support removing this line as well. Also Utcursch; I still think we should add that Minhaj-us-Siraj mentioned him as a Rajput. (on page no. 98 from Upinder Singh book published in OUP) White Horserider (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The "Rajput" identity, in the sense of an elite group with "Kshatriya" status did not exist at the time of Prithviraj. The Rajputs were originally non-elite groups, which under Mughal rule were granted elite status, and eventually came to be identified as kshatriyas in the varna system. Similarly, the Marathas were non-elite groups for which Shivaji, by staging an elaborate coronation with a "royal Brahmin" in tow attained a kind of caste upliftment. Susan Bayly has written about this; Barbara D. Metcalf might have as well, at least about Shivaji's upward mobility. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fowler&fowler: No that isn't true at all, you didn't mentioned about the work at all secondly I am proposing to add contrasting views from atleast 10-12 modern scholary sources. The Rajputs never aquired Kshatriya status at all, infact they originated from tribal chiefs during seventh-eight centuries AD. Anyway, there is no point in objecting without a source. I still stands that it's better to add contrasting views of scholars. Tablot never quoted footonotes or any inscriptional evidence for her claim. White Horserider (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, none of the work (Bayly &Barbara D. Metcalf) states the same that Rajput identity didn't exist in twelvth century, I went through the books and it states that Mughals came to honour warriors whom they called Rajputs in 16th and 17th centuries typical of left inclined historians to praise Mughals for everything that exists in India. I also have inscritptional evidences backed up by Indologists that Rajputs as a caste group opposed Ghaznavids during 11th century AD. After going through your edit history you aren't familiar with these issues at all and just use few historians to back up your bogous claims on every article like you did at Mughal Empire (even those source don't support your claim), anyway you are yet to answer me even there. So better don't just oppose for the sake of doing it. White Horserider (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I don't know much about Shivaji's ancestry but surely these two authors never stated that Rajput didn't exist in Prithviraja-III reign. I have more sources to support my content. White Horserider (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Rajput identity pretty much existed before Prithviraj. A majority of RS say so. According to Barbara N. Ramusack, there are historical evidences to state that people calling themselves Rajput had begun to settle in the Indo-Gangetic plains by the 6th century.[1] Citing the 1234 CE inscriptions found in the Mahoba fort, Irfan Habib concludes that a Rajput caste had established itself well before the 13th century.[2] I have highlighted these two RS because they say that there are "evidences" to support their statements. Apart from these two, we have notable historians like Upinder Singh, Eugenia Vanina, Hermann Kulke, Alain Danielou, Satish Chandra who write that Rajputs had emerged as a socio-political class well before Prithviraj.
On the other hand, we have writer Cynthia Tablot who thinks otherwise. Her writings seem to be based on mere speculations rather than historical evidences as she never visited India. She should be considered unreliable in context of Indian history.
I also suggest to add the term "Rajput" in the "Early life" section. It should begin with something like "Prithvi was born in a Rajput family" as we have plenty of RS to support this statement. Shinjoya (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but add a note - Our article states the Rajput identity, in its current sense, did not exist in early medieval India (when Chauhan ruled); our article does not state that people referring themselves as Rajputs did not exist. Talbot notes What the term Rajput meant prior to the Mughal period is a contentious issue, for scholars disagree about how far back we can trace the existence of the Rajputs as a community. and concurs with Kolff’s assertion that “since the late sixteenth century, something like a new Rajput Great Tradition emerged which could recognise little else than unilineal kin bodies as the elements of which genuine Rajput history ought to be made up.” Raso's Chauhan fits into this refashioning of Rajput identity.
Chattopadhyay mentions that many scholars doubt whether Rajput identity had developed by tenth-twelfth centuries but goes on to reject them. This is cited by Roy. I urge you all to read Michael Boris Bednar's excellent rebut of Chattopadhyay, in this regard. Which has already been pointed to by Talbot. Tanuja Kothiyal stresses on these aspects too.
You have cited Irfan Habib and Ramusack but without understanding these nuances. Please read [Essays in Indian History: Towards a Marxist Perception Irfan Habib. Anthem Press, 2002. p. 89-90] for yourself. And, please do not use sociologists, who have no training in Indian history. Upinder Singh's rethinking Early Medieval India has no p. 567; please mention the chapter or author. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: Hmm..Tablot never used any primary or inscriptional evidence for her spectulation that this identity doesn't exist during Chauhan's reign. Michael Bedner works are not available anywhere, so can't say how his rebut of B.D Chattopadhyay is an excellent one, his work is promoted by Cynthia just because it fits her narrative. BTW, Cynthia never came to India so how on earth she can examine inscriptions is beyond me neither her nor Kolff quote any primary concrete evidence which supports their claim. Irfan Habib ref. from Anthem press dated to 2002 (originally published in 1997) whereas the source which I add dated itself to 2008. (Historians change their narrative very frequently).. Also, even in 2002 one; Habib mentioned that the term was used in persian texts during 16th century. (even this is dubious; Al-Masudi, eight century scholar labelled Qandhar as country of Rajputs, Even Minhaj-us-siraj (lived in 12th century) mentioned Prithviraj as a Rajput king who was riding an horse.
Don't try to overrun my sources and FYI sociologists too are learned scholars who are pretty much aware about caste-related issues of South Asia. Same author is used on Rajput article to mention them illiterate warriors. White Horserider (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot use primary sources. Also, please do not challenge Talbot's authority on pre-modern India; her publications speak for themselves. She need not cite primary sources because she is sourcing from Bednar, who has already scrutinised prim. sources. Bednar's thesis is available over Proquest.
Habib did not change his narrative; you fail to understand him because to you, any inscription that mentions a lingustic variant of Rajput, confirms a Rajput identity. I don't care what other article uses what kind of source and this talk-page concerns with this article.
You have obviously not replied to my (or (Fowler&fowler's) main argument. Also, please mention the chapter from Upinder Singh's work. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brajadulal Chattopadhyay is far more known scholar than Bednar, I tried my level best to acess Bednar work but failed to do so. What's more intersting here is that even Bednar never came to India so how a individual who never came to this part of world examine inscriptions and dismiss other scholars authenticity. B.D Chattopadhyay work is upvoted by several scholars including Peter Jackson, Irfan Habib etc. There are more scholars who staged Rajput emergence as a community since seventh century A.D.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] White Horserider (talk)
How do you know that Bednar or Talbot never visited India? You are wrong, as evident from a cursory reading of their works. I urge you to see the scholars who have cited Bednar.
Also, what do you mean by "community"? These words are not to be thrown about lightly. Why are you using scholars of religion or sociology (or undergraduate textbooks) to discuss Rajput history, when there are specialist scholars? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ TrangaBellam: In his 2002 book, Irfan Habib said that the Rajputs emerged as a caste community in 16th century. However, on accessing new evidences like inscriptions from Mahoba fort, he corrected himself and concluded in his 2008 book that a Rajput caste identity had been formed well before 13th century. His old statement of 2002 book itself becomes obsolete and meaningless now. Shinjoya (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Theres only one source which supports the "claim rajput didn't existed at the time of Prithviraja." Is of Cynthia talbot ,As per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE and Minority views like these should not be given undue weight in the lead. White Horserider has provided multiple scholarly citations which states Prithviraj was a rajput so i say we should remove the Cynthia source since Consensus among scholars seems to be that Prithviraja was rajput.RatnaHastintalk 07:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: Lmao... You are obviously in love with Tablot's work that is the sole reason you are going this far to state that don't challenge her authority on these topic. It's humourous that neither Tablot nor Bedner came to India to examine this inscriptions but you are believing there speculation as a gospel. I mentioned Upinder Singh's statement with quote on page number 567 (which i read few years back). As for Irfan Habib, no mate he indeed states the same fact in this book which I quoted that the Rajput caste established itself well before 13th century. White Horserider (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more formal in your replies. Upinder's book has no Pg. 567. It consists of 367 pages. Anyways, please read Aparna Kapadia's "Praise of Kings" for more context. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
White Horserider, Let me suggest politely that you cease your exhibitionistic commentary on scholars with whom you disagree and generally stop behaving in a way that make your statements appear absurd or immature. I do understand that you are new to Wikipedia and unconversant with its ways, but please don't abuse that privilege. Please don't call Cynthia Talbot "Cynthia" in a WP talk page discussion (even if you are on first names basis with her, nor claim vacuously that she has never been to India. Most likely she does seem to have spent time in India, "My favorite research site was a memorial park for Prithviraj Chauhan constructed in 1996 at Ajmer, his former capital. Rarely visited, it is a quiet spot that offers a panoramic view of the city from its position halfway up a hill." (here) Please cease unless you are looking to be penalized. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using "rajput" to characterize the lineage of Prithviraj is anachronistic usage.[10] The kshatriya or kshatriya-like status associated with Rajputs dates to Mughal times.[11][12] What the rajputs (from Skr raj (kingly) putra (son)) were before the Mughals is not clear. They were a dubiously inferred mixture of armed peasants,[13] aboriginals, Indo-Scythians, who had succeeded to chieftaincies. North Indian socio-cultural history is chock full of caste upliftment—armed peasants from non-elite pastoral (Rajput or Jat) or tiller (Kurmi) backgrounds aspiring to Kshatriya status. See my Jat people and Kurmi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: What you are now trying to do is deflecting from the topic. Whether or not "Rajputs" had Kshatriya status during Prithviraj's period is immaterial here. What matters is that sources including contemporary ones like Prithviraj Raso and Minhaj-i Siraj Juzjani identified him as a Rajput king and hence, he should be mentioned as a Rajput king in "Early life" section of the article. Writers like Cynthia Tablot should be considered as WP:FRINGE and hence should not be given undue weightage in the article. The same Cyntia Talbot wrote about destruction of Hindu temples during Muslim rule that they were destroyed in retaliation and had no religious motivations. This clearly shows that she has a little knowledge of Indian history and she writes with a leftist bias. Shinjoya (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok Fowler&fowler; Tablot travelled India only once and What about scholars who spent hours and hours working on primary sources???? Anyway, I am not saying to remove her work but rather mention other side of coin too.

1. Somānī, Rāmavallabha (1981). Prithviraj Chauhan and His Times. Publication Scheme. ISBN 978-81-85263-02-1.

Got one more source:-

This is also a scholary work on Prithviraj Chauhan life, I am quoting well known Indologist Dasharatha Sharma here from this book by Somani (a historian too)

Quote:- The local Rajputs residing on the borders of Rajasthan also measured sword regularly thinking it's their duty to rescue the womens, cows and other religious shrines. As pointed out by Indologist Sharma that Goverdhan inscriptions of V.E. 1060 (1003 A.D.) of village Olla, V.E. 1070 (1014 A.D) and an undated inscription attributed to first quarter of 11th century AD of Ajmer contains the account of heroic death of several member of Rajput community

Now, If 11th century inscriptions mentioned that Rajput died fighting invaders then how did they didn't exist as caste group till 16th century ??? And, No Cynthia seems fine to me this is first name of author.White Horserider (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: Sorry If I confused any page numbers but definately this is work of Upinder Singh anyway I will mention correct page number too very shortly...., Got it !!!!! page number is 137.. I confused this with Upinder Singh's 2008 work, Appology for it.


Bayly Susan never stated that Rajput identity didn't exist during Prithviraja reign. She stated that Mughals honuored them as Rajputs, they may not be descedents of Rajasthan meant they can be from Central asian invading tribes (Huns). Peter Jackson himself quoted B.D Chattopadhyay for Rajputs in footnotes (who himself placed Rajput emergence as a community since 12th century), There is definately work of Tablot available but again She isn't end all and be all on PRC and Rajputs, we should add contrasting views too. TrangaBellam: Hermann Kulke, Upinder Singh, Satish Chandra, Romila Thapar, Eugenia Vannia are not undergraduate historians by any stretch of imagination unless someone is slightly nuts, they are scholars of highest class. White Horserider (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice for all involved editors

Let other editors too give their inputs here; I provided 12-15 high-quality source for my claim although I still suggests to not remove Tablot work but also add contrasting scholary views or remove this contentious line too. White Horserider (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ Barbara N. Ramusack (2003). The Indian Princes and their States, The New Cambridge History of India. Cambridge University Press. p. 14. ISBN 9781139449083.
  2. ^ Irfan Habib (2008). Medieval India: The Study of Civilization. National Book Trust. ISBN 978-81-237-5255-6. Quote:"After going through several inscriptions particularly In the Mahoba fort (actually from Kasrak near Badaun) in an entry of 1234, The Rautas are spoken of as a Jati or caste, Rauta is actually the Prakrit form of Rajaputra (In Hindi, Rajput caste) and a Rajput caste had established itself well before 13th century.
  3. ^ Hermann kulke (2004). A History of India. Psychology Press. p. 116. ISBN 978-0-415-32920-0. When Harsha shifted the centre of north India history to Kannauj in mids of Ganga-Jamuna doab the tribes living in the west of this new centre also became more important for further courses of Indian history They were first and foremost the Rajputs who now emerged into limelight of Indian history
  4. ^ Sailendra Nath Sen (1999). Ancient Indian History and Civilization. New Age International. p. 307. ISBN 978-81-224-1198-0. The anarchy and confusion which followed the death of Harsha is a transitional period of history. This period was marked by the rise of Rajput who begins to plau a consipicious role in the history of northern and western India from eight century onwards
  5. ^ Alain Danielou (2003). A Brief History of India. Simon and Schuster. p. 87. ISBN 978-1-59477-794-3. The Rajputs The rise of Rajputs in the history of northern and central India is considerable, as they dominated the scene between the death of Harsha and establishement of Mughal empire
  6. ^ Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya (2006). Studying Early India: Archaeology, Texts and Historical Issues. Anthem. p. 116. ISBN 978-1-84331-132-4. The period between seventh and twelvth century witnessed gradual rise of a number of new royal-lineages in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh which came to consitute a social-political category known as Rajputs
  7. ^ Satish Chandra (1996). Historiography, Religion, and State in Medieval India. Har-Anand Publications. p. 115. ISBN 978-81-241-0035-6. "In north India, dominant features of the period between 7th and 12th centuries have been identified as the growing weakness of state; the growth of power of local landed elittes and their decentralising authority by aquiring greater administrative, economic and political roles, the decline of towns, the setback to trades, This period between 7th to 12th century is also noted for rise of Rajputs
  8. ^ Sara R. Farris (2013-09-05). Max Weber’s Theory of Personality: Individuation, Politics and Orientalism in the Sociology of Religion. BRILL. p. 145. ISBN 978-90-04-25409-1. "In about the eight century the Rajput thus began to perform the functions that had formerly belonged to the Kshatriya, assuming their social and economic position and substituting them as the new warrior class
  9. ^ Eugenia Vanina (2012). Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man. Primus Books. p. 140. ISBN 978-93-80607-19-1. By the period of seventh–eights centuries AD when the first references to the Rajput clans and their chieftains were made
  10. ^ Jackson, Peter (2003). The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 9–. ISBN 978-0-521-54329-3. Confronting the Ghurid ruler now were a number of major Hindu powers, for which the designation 'Rajput' (not encountered in the Muslim sources before the sixteenth century) is a well-established anachronism. Chief among them was the Chahamana (Chawhan) kingdom of Shakambhari (Sambhar), which dominated present-day Rajasthan from its capital at Ajmer
  11. ^ Bayly, Susan (2001). Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Cambridge University Press. pp. 39–. ISBN 978-0-521-79842-6. Yet the varna archetype of the Kshatriya-like man of prowess did become a key reference point for rulers and their subjects under the Mughals and their immediate successors. The chiefs and warriors whom the Mughals came to honour as Rajput lords in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries may not even have been descendants of Rajasthan's earlier pre-Mughal elites.
  12. ^ Talbot, Cynthia (2016). The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj Cauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000. Cambridge University Press. p. 121. ISBN 978-1-107-11856-0. A factor in the growing emphasis on illustrious Rajput ancestry from the sixteenth century onward was the example of the Mughals, who had a considerable interest in their own genealogy. Adding to that were the more restricted avenues for social mobility after the consolidation of the Mughal empire, which ruled out opportunities for military action and made hereditary prestige even more weighty. As Rajput chiefs were increasingly co-opted into the Mughal system, a sharper line was drawn between them and the other, less elite, fighting men of India. One way of doing this was through acknowledging the kshatriya status of Rajputs, as Akbar's historian Abu al-Fazl does when discussing caste in A 'in-i Akbart. Abu al-Fazl goes on to "record the names of a few of the most renowned [Rajput lineages], that are now in His Majesty's service," beginning with the Rathors. The repeated conflation of Rajput with kshatriya that can be witnessed in Prthviraj Raso is thus part of a larger early modern trend of stressing the elite nature of Rajputs, as well as their ancient ancestry.
  13. ^ Kolff, Dirk H. A. (2002). Naukar, Rajput, and Sepoy: The Ethnohistory of the Military Labour Market of Hindustan, 1450-1850. Cambridge University Press. p. 58. ISBN 978-0-521-52305-9. What at first sight might seem to be a change of religion, is often a device to register either recruitment or professional success whether military or otherwise. Very often the Rajput to Afghan change — and, one may add, the peasant to Rajput change — was a similar kind of affair, indicating the pervading impact of soldiering traditions on North Indian social history. The military labour market, in other words, was a major generator of socio-religious identities.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan&oldid=1029493356"