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 12:38, 21 June 2021 (→‎Meat puppetry?). 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]
@Shinjoya: Prithviraj Raso is a late 16th-century bardic tale. There is no mention of the word "Rajput" in contemporary (13th-century) or earlier Muslim sources. Among India's newly arrived Muslim conquerors to whose swift-horse cavalry Prithviraj had no response (see the Medieval history section of the India page, which I have written) there was a tradition of writing history and travel literature. On the other hand, Rajasthan, formerly Rajputana, was a vast intellectual desert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 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.
Got one more source:- Somānī, Rāmavallabha (1981). Prithviraj Chauhan and His Times. Publication Scheme. ISBN 978-81-85263-02-1.
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]
@White Horserider: Please don't continue to deliberately violate talk page guidelines. Her name is "Cynthia Talbot," not "Cyntia Tablot," and you know it. She is one of the leading historians of early medieval India. Rajasthan, on the other hand, was a monument to feudalism, inequality, illiteracy, misogyny, female infanticide, and gender inequality, which it remained well into the modern era, documented in every census of the British Indian Empire from 1871 to 1941. Even today, it is at the near bottom of the Human Development Index among Indian states and the absolute bottom of female literacy. It was an ahistorical early-medieval culture. In any case, please be very careful in not repeatedly violating talk page guidelines. You are looking at being blocked, even banned, as several admins have already informed you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler You seem to be violating WP:TALK#TOPIC by making these unnecessary off topic politically motivated comments about Rajasthan (Utterly irrelevant here) and making a unnecessary issue out of calling Cynthia talbot by her first name.stay on the topic which is Prithviraja 's Identity .RatnaHastintalk 13:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin: I am not. Rather I am pointing out that there was no historiography in a region that had remained a poverty-ridden, intellectual desert for upward of eight centuries. There were only legendary bardic tales, all unreliable.[14] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shinjoya: As for your interpretation of off-topic, female-infanticide was an integral part of Rajput culture, of a piece with it overall functional illiteracy and inability to record history. See Tim Dyson's A Population History of India, Oxford, 2018.[15]
  • @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]
  • It is quite impossible to be an undergraduate historian. What I said was S.N. Sen's work is an undergraduate textbook.
  • Ramya Srinivasan notes in her award winning work on Padmini, B.D. Chattopadhyaya demonstrates the mixed origins of the Rajputs of Rajasthan between the seventh and twelfth centuries, he argues that a distinctive Rajput clan structure was in place by the end of this period. Please stop substituting class, clan, caste, community and what not with each other.
  • The point of Talbot is that Raso's fashioning of Prithviraj aligns with a Rajput identity, characteristic of the Mughal Span. Which is hardly surprising because Raso was not a contemporary in all likelihood.
  • Prithviraj might have self identified as a Rajput (whose meaning would be something very different than what is currently understood today). If you have sources claiming so, please use them. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: Agree generally about Sailendra Nath Sen. There is nothing wrong in using a reliable modern undergraduate textbook published by an academic publisher (for as a tertiary source, it is often useful in assigning due weight (see WP:TERTIARY)). The problem with Sen's book is that it is not modern (he wrote his first book in 1937). Along with R.C. Majumdar et al's Advanced History of India it is a dated work of the nationalist school. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam:, B.D. Chattopadhyaya demonstrates the mixed origins of the Rajputs of Rajasthan between the seventh and twelfth centuries, he argues that a distinctive Rajput clan structure was in place by the end of this period.
Even this quote suggests that a proper Rajput clan structure had been built by Prithviraj's era (12 th century).
Prithviraj might have self identified as a Rajput (whose meaning would be something very different than what is currently understood today).
Again speculations. Not all historians can have exactly same views on a subject. There will always be some contradictions. You are trying to skip the question citing these contradictions. The discussion about the status of term "Rajput" during Prithvi's time is immaterial here because this is the talk page of Prithviraj Chauhan rather than Rajput. What matters here is that a majority of RS including the contemporary Minhaj-i Siraj Juzjani identify him as a Rajput and a very few WP:FRINGE sources like Cynthia Tablot has questioned his Rajput identity. Shinjoya (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sreenivasan then goes on to comment about how Chattopadhyay and others have missed the forest for the trees. Obviously, you haven't read her work. My point was about you three substituting class, clan, caste, community and what not with each other.
Talbot is not fringe, by any definition of the word. She is a very reputed academic with about 1000 citations and has an entire monograph on the subject, which is much recent than your cited sources. The monograph won the 2018 Ananda Kentish Coomaraswany Book Prize by Association for Asian Studies and went on to receive very favorable reviews.
And, nobody is speculating anything. The Rajput identity, as fashioned by Raso (my emphasis), did not exist during his time. He might have been a Rajput, for all I care. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:31, 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]

Arbitrary break

@Shinjoya: And how.[14] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all of those who labelled who labelled Sailendra Nath as a tertiary author. He is a former Professor of History, University of Calcutta, an Honorary Professor of History there since 2005. The work which is used as a citation here is from decent publication and was published in April 1987 not some 1939. I added a source from OUP where Minhaj-us-Siraj mentioned him as a Rajput. It's a request to let other contributors to participate in this discussion too. Still; I am supporting to add contrasting views rather than removing Tablot's work; If not so remove this controversial line. I am busy in these tough times so don't make these thread a fish market. Anyway, Fowler&fowler you are yet to answer me at Mughal Empire talk page. Night all White Horserider (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@White Horserider: I know about him. Please carefully read what I have written. Sailendra Nath Sen wrote his first book, his Leeds Masters thesis in 1937.[17] See also here. Using the age of 23 as the median age for a Masters then, he was very likely born before 1915, making him at least 105 today, if he is alive. In the instance that this was not him, there are certainly more tell-tale references to him from the mid-1950s in the Proceedings of the Indian History Congress (here). His best known-book on Anglo-Maratha Relations was published in 1961 (see here) He is dated today. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam Your love for Cynthia is surely one for the ages. It's funny how you end up presenting sources which themselve mentioned that by time of Prithviraja-III a proper Rajput clan structure waa established. I never opposed her work, (but it's highly dubious) but We should have contrasting views. I read history in last 40 years; nearly all authors who lived from 13th century till now labelled Prithviraja as a Rajput ruler. I was first one to oppose edits of Ratnahastin & Shinojya on Rathore article when they removed scholary work about Rajputs originating from tribals and being illiterate. You are again & again bringing irrelevant things here, Please FFS; let other editors participate. Your latest comment doesn't make any sense at all that he was a Raso styled Rajput. White Horserider (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler Sorry but I am tired in this meaningless discussion with you which are not related to topic in any form. S.N Sen work is from April 1987 that's what i can gather from all available links and threads, stop adding your personal commentary here. Earlier you said that India and Rajasthan are poor third-world country, blah blah !!!! Ok, then don't participate in discussion of rulers from these part of world. Did I ask you ??? We seriously need a neutral moderator here because it's getting really annoying and time-wasting process. I just proposed one thing that removed this highly dubious statement (Only in case If you don't like contrasting scholary views) But these discussion went on at Rajasthan being poor and so on..., Anyway, I am busy in these tough times of Covid-19 therefore let other editors too participate and then wait for consensus. Please answer me on Mughal Empire talk page too with concrete evidences not vague claims. White Horserider (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@White Horserider: I have written the article Company rule in India, I am aware that SN Sen's area of specialization was India under Company rule, more specifically Anglo-Maratha relations, not early medieval India. As for "fish market," you have as of (16:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)) written 1659 words here. I have written 794, which is less than half yours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ @Fowler&fowler, White Horserider, TrangaBellam, and Ratnahastin:

Apart from Minhaj-i Siraj Juzjani, I have now got two more important sources ie writings of Muslim historians of early medieval era which prove that Rajput identity pretty much existed in those times :

1. The renowned 10th century Arab historian Al-Masudi described Kandahar as a country of Rajputs.[18] [19]

2. In the battle between Prithviraj Chauhan and Muhammad of Ghor in 1192 A.D., the historian Firishta stated that "Hindu Afghans were fighting on the side of the Rajput Chief".[20][21]

Please close this debate and remove the controversial line now, as per admin Utcursch. We have had enough of discussion on this. Shinjoya (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Utcursh did not support any edit. He said only, "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." Were he supporting an edit, he'd have to submit reliable sources like the rest of us. In other words, he might be an admin, but that does not make him automatically an unchallengeable expert on Indian history
There is little chance that line will go, or that this page—already a fawning monument to Hindu majoritarian fantasies which has managed to fly under the radar—will become one even more so. The weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. You can't scrape the bottom of the barrel, and claim equal status of the sludge with Asher and Talbot, who don't mention anything about Prithviraj being Rajput, only that his army was walloped by the Ghurids. (This is mentioned also in the medieval history section of the India page, which I have written: "After the 10th century, Muslim Central Asian nomadic clans, using swift-horse cavalry and raising vast armies united by ethnicity and religion, repeatedly overran South Asia's north-western plains, leading eventually to the establishment of the Islamic Delhi Sultanate in 1206.[22] The sultanate was to control much of North India and to make many forays into South India. Although at first disruptive for the Indian elites, the sultanate largely left its vast non-Muslim subject population to its own laws and customs.(cited to Asher and Talbot, 2008, p 47 and Metcalf and Metcalf, 2006, p 6)" No mention of Prithviraj anywhere, nor Rajputs. Rajputs are mentioned only in the early modern section of India, which also I have written: "Newly coherent social groups in northern and western India, such as the Marathas, the Rajputs, and the Sikhs, gained military and governing ambitions during Mughal rule, which, through collaboration or adversity, gave them both recognition and military experience." (Cited to Metcalf and Metcalf, pp 23-24). Both have stood the test of time for more than ten years. India, Wikipedia's oldest country WP:Featured article (now 17 years) until the pandemic was receiving on average 30K+ page views a day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also the extended quote from Asher and Talbot's book, India before Europe, Cambridge, 2006.[23] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Audrey Truschke's The Language of History: Sanskrit Narratives of Indo-Muslim Rule, Columbia University Press, 2021, which says, "In the 1190s, the term “Rajput” as we mean it today had not been coined."[24]
@Fowler&fowler: on what basis does that writer claim that the term "Rajput" had a different meaning in Prithvi's time? I mean, what evidence has been cited? None. On the other hand, noted Indian historian, Irfan Habib (who has certainly spent more time in India), in his 2008 book, cited an inscription found in Mahoba fort and concluded that a Rajput caste (or jati) had been formed well before the 13th century. Its obvious that he has more weight in his claims than foreigner Cynthia who seems to be speculating and citing other writers rather than doing her own WP:OR.
Its clear that you are trying to deflect this discussion to the larger Rajput subject to maintain the status quo. Quotes from Firishta and Minhaj-i Siraj Juzjani were enough to close this debate as they are contemporary ones but you want this discussion to not stop anytime as you want to keep your preferred version. Shinjoya (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Note: This discussion as of now due to consistent irrelevant talks by two editors is not going in any way. One user is so much is in fascination with Cynthia that they are consistently bombarding me with talk page warnings. They made so many comments with little to no use in this thread. Anyway they are accusing me of not providing a WP:RS it's humourous that I add 18 high quality sources from top scholars which supports my claim. After going through their comments it seems that they hate India and anything related to it. They are again & again adding sources from Tablot book with different quotes now about Rajasthani Rajput have superiority complex. They add work of Audrey Truscke now who herself quoted Cynthia. Anyway Audrey reputation as a distorian is well-known to all. Please a civil administrator or senior editor join these discussion. I am waiting for more editors for their views. Anyone who is neutral (which no one is

at Wikipedia these days will get about nuance of my sources) White Horserider (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also, Richard Eaton, India in the Persianate Age, Penguin-Random House, 2019, which also asserts that the Rajput identity in any recognizable form did not emerge until the 16th century.[25] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicting views too exist and are more in strength than these foreigner writers. Also note that this article is titled Prithviraj Chauhan rather than Rajput.Shinjoya (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler read your source carefully you're misrepresenting it talks about rajput status being not necessarily hereditary in 13th-14th century and term rajputs acquired a hereditary connotation in 16th century its not about rajput identity. Let alone Prithviraja chauhan. RatnaHastintalk 02:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin: You are welcome to change it to, "Prithviraj Chauhan was an armed peasant—alternatively he was a clean Shudra in the manner of the British census characterization of 1891, i.e. a man from whom Brahmins could accept water—who in retrospective ballads of grief and nostalgia about the loss of the Hindu way of life to Muslims, came to be called a Rajput." I'm the one who is gathering the modern reliable sources. You have nothing but authors with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Aditya Behl, Love's Subtle Magic: An Indian Islamic Literary Tradition, 1379-1545, Oxford University Press, 2012, considers "Rajput" to be a retrospective invention dating to between the mid-15th to mid-16th centuries.[26] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Norbert Peabody, Hindu Kingship and Polity in Precolonial India, Cambridge University Press, 2003. He considers patrilineal descent, and thus a notion of a "caste," to have been inculcated among the Rajputs only after the 16th century.[27] Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... Richards source mentioned that Rajput begin calling themselves as one in 16th century this itself is contradicted by Ramansauck source which mentions that there are historical evidences of people calling themselves as Rajput by sixth century AD setlled in Indo-Gangetic plain.[28] Anyway Richards himself elaborated that records exist of Rajput existence earlier too. Another clever misrepresentation. Aditya Behal himself quoted Kolff and this is in notes not in main article. Untill a moderator arrives this won't go anywhere. You presented several missimg and half quotes too.White Horserider (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also observed that two editors who are using one lobby of historians who copied each other material also claims that Prithviraja Vijay (contemporary text) was not part of Rajput text. Let me tell you here too that Prithviraj vijay is part of Rajput epic composed under patronage of Rajput rulers.[29]

It's also funny how you ignore 18-20 sources of mine and labelles it as silly defense, This quote that term Rajput is not a heredity one during 14th century is from Tablot book itself which is copied by you. FYI Minhaj-us-Siraj was a contemporary author who mentioned Prithviraj as a Rajput. White Horserider (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also; Burton Stein explained as per examination of S.K.T inscriptions that The Rajput claim as a community were recorded in Sanskrit inscriptions that consituted as well as recorded in Rajasthan during the seventh century, when Rajputs begins to make themselves lords of various localities[30]
  • Also, arguing in little bit similar vein Romila Thapar, Satish Chandra and Kaushik Roy too agreed for Rajput emergences as a community since later half of 12ty century AD.[31][32][33]
  • Minhaj-i-Siraj, a historian of Ghorid and later Mamluks in his account of defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan in Second Battle of Tarain also presented Prithviraj as a Rajput king.Thus, claim of persian authors not mentioning term of Rajput for Prithvirajnis another bogous claim. [34]
  • Yet another modern scholarly source: Nandini Chatterjee, Land and law in Mughal India, Cambridge University Press, 2020, about late medieval emergence of Rajputs.[35] Btw, do you have anything from the 21st century? Your sources appear to be mostly cherry-picked archaic views (e.g. early 20th-C notion of Rajputs as migrants; note in response: "Among the various theories regarding sources of such nomadic warrior groups, the Central Asian theory was popular in the early twentieth century (Chatterjee, p. 50)"? Kaushik Roy, by the way, is a military historian of the Indian military of the 20th century, not a medievalist, not even remotely. He might have said something that he skimmed off secondary sources to add the obligatory background paragraph. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 21 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.
  14. ^ a b Thapar, Romila (2004). Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. University of California Press. p. 419. ISBN 978-0-520-24225-8. Bardic tradition holds that there were thirty-six Rajput founding clans, but the list varies from source to source. Among the Rajput clans, four claimed a special status. These four — the Pratiharas or Pariharas, the Chahamanas, more commonly called Chauhans, the Chaulukyas (distinct from the Deccan Chalukyas) also known as the Solankis, and the Paramaras or Pawars — claimed descent from a mythical figure who arose out of a sacrificial fire pit near Mt Abu in Rajasthan. The story — probably invented long after the rise of the Rajputs — maintained that the rishi Vasishtha had a kamadhenu, a cow that grants all one's wishes, which was stolen by another sage, Vishvamitra. Vasishtha therefore made an offering to the sacrificial fire at Mt Abu whereupon a hero sprang out of the fire, then brought the cow back to Vasishtha. In gratitude Vasishtha bestowed the name Paramara (explained as 'slayer of the enemy') on the hero, from whom the Paramara dynasty was descended. The other clans had variations on ...
  15. ^ Dyson, Tim (2018). A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day. Oxford University Press. p. 160. ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8. The government's efforts to eradicate female infanticide may also have had a slight upward effect on life expectation. The extent of the practice is very hard to assess—for example, because of the under-reporting of young girls in the censuses. Nevertheless, infanticide was practised in Rajput and Jat households in the north and north-west. For most of the nineteenth century efforts to eliminate it met with little success. But in 1870 the government introduced legislation which formed the basis of what Lalita Panigrahi calls a 'mature and assertive social policy'. Essentially, census, survey, and vital registration data were used on a large scale to identify social groups who killed female infants at birth.
  16. ^ Romila Thapar. Early India from origins to 1300 AD. University of California Press. p. 434.Quote: "The Rajputs gathered together as best they could, not forgetting internal rivalries and jealousies. Prithviraj defeated Ghori at the first battle of Tarain, North of Delhi, in 1191."
  17. ^ Sen, Sailendra Nath (1937). The Development of Primary and Post-primary Education in England During the Present Century. University of Leeds (Department of Education).
  18. ^ Bellew, Henry Walter (1879). Afghanistan and the Afghans. S. Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington. p. 218.
  19. ^ Quddus, Syed Abdul (1987). The Pathans. Ferozsons. p. 28. Grierson finds a form Paithan in use in the East Gangetic Valley to denote a Muslim Rajput. Bellew, one of the greatest authorities on Pathans, notes that several characteristics are common to both the Rajputs and the Afghans and suggests that Sarban, one of the ancestors of the Afghans, was a corruption of the word Suryabans (solar race) from which many Rajputs claim descent. The great Muslim historian Masudi writes that Qandahar was a separate kingdom with a non- Muslim ruler and states that it is a country of Rajputs. It would be pertinent to mention here that at the time of Masudi most of the Afghans were concentrated in Qandahar and adjacent areas and had not expanded to the north. Therefore, it is highly significant that Masudi should call Qandahar a Rajput country.
  20. ^ Quddus, Syed Abdul (1990). The North-west Frontier of Pakistan. Royal Book Co. p. 79. Even 200 years later in the encounter between Mohammad Ghori and Prithviraj in 1192 A.D., according to Farishta, Hindu Afghans were fighting on the side of the Rajput Chief.
  21. ^ The Historical Background of Pakistan and its people.
  22. ^ Ludden 2002, p. 68.
  23. ^ Asher, Catherine B.; Talbot, Cynthia (2006). India Before Europe. Cambridge University Press. pp. 99–. ISBN 978-0-521-80904-7. Among the new states that arose in north India as Delhi's power waned in the fifteenth century were several headed by the Hindu warriors known as Rajputs. Rajput is a broad label used to designate a slew of martial groups once found throughout much of north India, although today the best known Rajput communities dwell in the state of Rajasthan. Because the term Rajput is derived from the Sanskrit raja-putra or "king's son,"Rajputs have typically claimed the status of kshatriya or ruling warrior in the four-fold varna classification of traditional India. However, recent research suggests that Rajput did not originally indicate a hereditary status but rather an occupational one: that is, it was used in reference to men from diverse ethnic and geographical backgrounds who fought on horseback. In Rajasthan and its vicinity, the word Rajput came to have a more restricted and aristocratic meaning, as exclusive networks of warriors related by patrilineal descent and intermarriage became dominant in the fifteenth century. The Rajputs of Rajasthan eventually refused to acknowledge the Rajput identity of warriors who lived farther to the east and retained the fluid and inclusive nature of their communities far longer than did the warriors of Rajasthan.
  24. ^ Truschke, Audrey (2021). The Language of History: Sanskrit Narratives of Indo-Muslim Rule. Columbia University Press. pp. 119–. ISBN 978-0-231-55195-3. ... we should be wary of modern biases in assuming who constitutes the "us" and who constitutes the "them" in the Prthvirajavijaya. In terms of the military clash, there were two clear sides: the Chauhans and the Ghurids. However, as we shall see, Jayanaka unpacks the Ghurid threat in terms of their ritual impurity, outcaste status, and linguistic limitations, rather than focusing exclusively on military might. He lauds Prithviraj Chauhan as a savior who will restore elite social practices that the Ghurids have compromised. Here, our clunky modern terminology fails us. Jayanaka did not see a Rajput warrior ethos, a Hindu struggle against Muslims, or Indians warding off invaders. And, really, how could he have? In the 1190s, the term "Rajput" as we mean it today had not been coined, the Persian term "Hindu" was not used self-referentially, and there was no Indian nation-state, in reality or imagination, to invade or protect
  25. ^ Eaton, Richard M. (2019). India in the Persianate Age: 1000-1765. Penguin Books Limited/Random House. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-14-196655-7. EMERGING IDENTITIES: THE IDEA OF 'RAJPUT' It was only from the sixteenth century that the word 'Rajput' became securely associated with territorially based, closed clans claiming deep genealogical roots and nurturing a warrior ethos of heroism and martyrdom." In inscriptions from western and central India dating from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries, the Sanskrit term rajaputra, 'a king's son', appears simply as a title indicating a rank or official position, but not one that was inheritable by subsequent generations or associated with martial heroism.** In those earlier centuries, kings received military service from subordinate chieftains, called ranakas or thakuras, in return for gifts of land that the latter gave to their own cavalry commanders, called rautas, a term derived from rajaputra. In Persian sources dating to the early thirteenth century these commanders are called rawat, also derived from rajaputra.°' In the early fifteenth century, the label 'Rajput' was still associated with successful military service performed by men who had taken up soldiering on behalf of a deserving king. But by the end of that century, the word was well on the way to referencing entire aristocratic lineages bearing a martial ethos of courage, heroism and martyrdom. Such lineages included the Chauhans of Ajmer, the Tomaras of Delhi, the Gahadavalas of Kanauj and the Chandelas of Kalinjar. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |quote= at position 374 (help)
  26. ^ Behl, Aditya (2012). Love's Subtle Magic: An Indian Islamic Literary Tradition, 1379-1545. Oxford University Press. pp. 364–. ISBN 978-0-19-514670-7. The term Rajput is a retrospective invention, as most of the martial literature of resistance to Turkish conquest dates only from the mid-fifteenth century onward. As Dirk Kolff has noted in his Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy: The Ethnohistory of the Military Labour Market in Hindustan, 1450-1850 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), the invention of "Rajput" identity can be dated to the sixteenth-century narratives of nostalgia for lost honor and territory.
  27. ^ Peabody, Norbert (2003). Hindu Kingship and Polity in Precolonial India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 38–. ISBN 978-0-521-46548-9. As Dirk Kolff has argued, it was privileged, if not initially inspired, only in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by Mughal perceptions of Rajputs which, in a pre-form of orientalism, took patrilineal descent as the basis for Rajput social Organization and consequently as the basis for their political inclusion into the empire. Prior to the Mughals, the term 'Rajput' was equally an open-ended, generic name applied to any '"horse soldier", "trooper", or "headman of a village"' regardless of parentage, who achieved his status through his personal ability to establish a wide network of supporters through his bhaibandh (lit. 'ie or bond of brothers'; that is, close collateral relations by male blood) or by means of naukari (military service to a more powerful overlord) and sagai (alliance through marriage). Thus the language of kinship remained nonetheless strong in this alternative construction of Rajput identity but collateral and affinal bonds were stressed rather than those of descent. During the sixteenth and seventeenth cen-
  28. ^ Barbara N. Ramusack (2003). The Indian Princes and their States, The New Cambridge History of India. Cambridge University Press. p. 14. ISBN 9781139449083. By the sixth century, There are historical evidences of people calling themselves Rajput begins to settle in Indo-Gangetic Plain. Over the course of ten centuries they came to control land and people....
  29. ^ Romila Thapar (2005). Somanatha: The Many Voices of a History. Verso. ISBN 978-1-84467-020-8.
  30. ^ Burton Stein (2010), Arnold, D. (ed.), A History of India (2nd ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, p. 109, ISBN 978-1-4051-9509-6, The Rajput claim as a community were recorded in Sanskrit inscriptions that consituted as well as recorded in Rajasthan during the seventh century, when Rajputs begins to make themselves lords of various localities
  31. ^ Satish Chandra (2009). State, Pluralism, and the Indian Historical Tradition. Oxford University Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-19-806420-6. In north India, dominant features of the period between seventh and twelvth 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 is also notable for rise of Rajputs. Both the term Rajput (Raja-putra) as name for caste and sense of unity in its components appears in northern Indian inscriptions of twelfth century, and must, therefore have evolved in preceding period"
  32. ^ Romila Thapar (2000). Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History. Oxford University Press. p. 1000. ISBN 978-0-19-564050-2. But in long stretch of historical time, group moves in and out of existence and group names changes very drastically. For example, the term Rajput aquired its modern meaning by the later half of twelfth century. In Harayna as the Tomaras, Chauhans and Sakas (ruling clans from medieval inscriptions), the earlier two have been recognised as Rajput dynasties and last being a refrence to the sultans
  33. ^ Kaushik Roy (2012). Hinduism and the Ethics of Warfare in South Asia: From Antiquity to the Present. Cambridge University Press. p. 166. ISBN 978-1-107-01736-8. By the end of twelfth and in subsequent thirteenth century, the term 'Rajput conveyed both political status and an element of heredity. Inter-clan marriages among the rajaputras further strengthened the Rajput identity {{cite book}}: line feed character in |quote= at position 17 (help)
  34. ^ Upinder Singh (1999). Ancient Delhi. Oxford University Press. p. 98. ISBN 978-0-19-564919-2. "Minhaj us-Siraj's in his work about Ghurid dynasty; narrates the defeat of Prithviraja in Second battle of Tarain, He presents that The Rajput king who was riding an horse
  35. ^ Chatterjee, Nandini (2020). Land and Law in Mughal India: A Family of Landlords across Three Indian Empires. Cambridge University Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-108-48603-3. Sometime around the twelfth century CE, heterogeneous nomadic and martial groups, including those that originated outside the subcontinent, began to cohere into royal dynasties with territorial claims, paired with genealogical assertions that traced their origins back to fictive progenitors capable of rendering a Kshatriya identity.' Some of these groups, spread from modern-day Rajasthan into central India and along the northern part of the Western Ghats, began to call themselves Rajputs (literally: sons of kings, or princes). Despite active efforts to secure and declare genealogical purity, 'Rajput' remained a relatively open social and occupational category well into the sixteenth century, perhaps even the nineteenth in central India, ...

Disparaging an academic

An editor, @White Horserider: been disparaging Cynthia Talbot, a historian of medieval India at the University of Texas-Austin, and the author of widely-respected books. Says this editor:

  • "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. (diff)
  • "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."(diff)
  • After my prodding them, "Ok, Fowler&fowler Tablot travelled India only once and What about scholars who spent hours and hourse working on primmary evidences ????" (diff)
  • "Your love for Cynthia is surely one for the ages. It's funny how you end up presenting sources which themselve mentioned that by time of Prithviraja-III a proper Rajput clan structure waa established." (diff)

Talbot has been going to India for some 30 years for the purposes of researching her books.[1][2] Her joint work with Catherine Asher, India before Europe, moreover was written with the aim of providing due weight for controversial topics in medieval Indian history.[3]

It is possible that this editor is not a toxic POV-pushing editor, only a new one who is unconversant with Talk Page Guidelines and conflates talk page conversations on WP and chat room conversations elsewhere, but obviously, he needs to keep Cynthia Talbot out of his ambit of somewhat immature speculation. Can an admin talk to him? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Talbot, Cynthia (2001). Precolonial India in Practice: Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra. Oxford University Press. p. v. ISBN 978-0-19-803123-9. This book is the culmination of many years of study and I have incurred numerous debts of gratitude in the process. My interest in medieval Andhra was first stimulated by V. Narayana Rao, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and led to a doctoral dissertation on the topic of religious gifts in Kakatiya Andhra, much of which is incorporated in chapter 3 of this work. A Fulbright-Hays doctoral dissertation grant funded the initial period of research in India. I am grateful to Sri Venkateswara University in Tirupati for providing an institutional affiliation, and to the directors and staff of the Chief Epigraphist's Office at Mysore and the Andhra Pradesh Department of Archaeology and Museums in Hyderabad for allowing access to many unpublished inscriptions. I especially wish to thank Prof. S. S. Ramachandra Murthy of Sri Venkateswara University for the many painstaking hours he spent reading through Telugu inscriptions with me. My doctoral research was summarized in the article "Temples, Donors, and Gifts: Patterns of Patronage in Thirteenth Century South India," published in the Journal of Asian Studies (vol. 50, no. 2 1991, pp. 308-40). Portions of it are reprinted here with permission of the Association for Asian Studies.
  2. ^ Talbot, Cynthia (2016). The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj Cauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000. Cambridge University Press. p. vii. ISBN 978-1-107-11856-0. Acknowledgements: A senior short-term fellowship from the American Institute of Indian Studies in 1999 made it possible for me to start research in Rajasthan, while research in London was facilitated by a Franklin Grant from the American Philosophical Society in 2000. On a fellowship from the American Council of Learned Societies during the 2000-1 academic year, I was able to read portions of Prithviraj Raso and other relevant texts. After a hiatus of several years, I resumed progress on the book thanks to a Guggenheim fellowship in 2007-8, conjoined with a membership at the Institute for Advanced Study, and a subsequent fellowship from the National Endowment of the Humanities in 2008-9. I am also grateful for various forms of assistance from my home institution, the University of Texas at Austin, including some release time from teaching on an Institute for Historical Studies fellowship in 2011-12. This book could not have been written without the resources at various manuscript archives and libraries, including the Jodhpur and Udaipur branches of the Rajasthan Prachyavidya Pratishthan; the Maharaja Man Singh Pustak Prakash in Jodhpur; Rajasthan Shodh Sansthan in Chopasni, Jodhpur; Pratap Shodh Pratishthan at Bhupal Nobles Sansthan, Udaipur; Sahitya Sansthan of Rajasthan Vidyapith, Udaipur; India Office Library and Records at the British Library; and most of all, the Royal Asiatic Society of Greater Britain and Ireland, in London. My thanks to the directors and staff at these research collections for allowing me access to their valuable materials. I am indebted too to the late Rajendra Joshi of the Institute for Rajasthan Studies, Brajmohan Jawaliya of Udaipur, and Hukamsingh Bhati of Jodhpur. (p vii)
  3. ^ Asher, Catherine B.; Talbot, Cynthia (2006). India Before Europe. Cambridge University Press. p. xiii. ISBN 978-0-521-80904-7. India Before Europe is the product of collaboration between two scholars from different disciplines, who have joined together to write a volume on Indian history and culture from 1200 to 1750. Catherine Asher is an art historian who has worked on north India's Indic, Islamic, and Islamicate cultural traditions. Cynthia Talbot is a historian who has worked largely on the social history of pre-Mughal south India and also is aware of larger trends in world history. When first approached by Marigold Acland of Cambridge University Press to write a history of the five hundred plus years immediately prior to the rise of British colonial power in India, neither of us felt competent to tackle this challenging task alone. Only by pooling our quite distinct spheres of training and knowledge, we thought, could we possibly do justice to the complexity and richness of this very important era. Little did we realize then how much more we had to learn, not only from each other but also from a wide range of individuals upon whose scholarship we relied. The end result is one that neither of us could have achieved on our own. ... An important motivation for both of us was the desire to provide a text that would be useful to specialists and non-specialists alike, something that would bridge the vast gap in the secondary literature between the introductory work on South Asia, on the one hand, and the many scholarly monographs and articles, on the other. The need for an up-to-date survey is particularly acute for the period with which we are concerned here, the years from 1200 to 1750, since the roots of many controversial issues that divide the peoples of South Asia along national, regional, religious, and ethnic lines today are thought to lie in that era.

Meat puppetry?

Three editors, White Horserider (talk · contribs), Ratnahastin (talk · contribs), and Shinjoya (talk · contribs) are making the same or very similar edits on a host of Rajput-related articles, all very similar to their POV expressed here, and generally in my view aligned with the POV of Hindu chauvinism which has attempted to recreate false histories of Rajputs as bulwarks against Islam. Ratnahastin appeared on WP in April 2021 (and has already engaged in ANI threads) and White Horserider in May 2021. On Rajputs, for example, I have just reverted their edits (diff) to the last edit of @Sitush:, WP's resident expert on Rajputs and caste, and author of an FA on James Todd. The frenetic POV-ridden feeding frenzy displayed by these editors can't be good for WP if for no reason other than becoming an outsized time sink for editors such as I who have the unenviable task of maintaining NPOV on Indian history-related articles. I'm posting here so that NPOV editors who have watchlisted this page, or similar ones, are aware of these edits. I have left a note for admins on one editor's user talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These lad is seriously funny 😂😂😂😂; He can't challenge my sources (apart from few authors who quoted each other) that's why accusing me of complete trash like calling Cynthia Tablot just Cynthia; labelling Rajasthan as poor state and so on... He has serious biases here against Indian and it's civilization. Still found it hard to belive that Why he is still not going off from ruler of this part of world whom he loves to hate. Anyway; none of his source (Apart from Cynthia) termed that Rajput identity did not exist during 12th century; They just quoted D.H.A kolff about Great Rajput tradition I quoted historians from Asia, Europe for my claims but now I am going off for a break as my family is suffering from COVID-19. Stay safe folks. White Horserider (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan&oldid=1029686513"