Talk:Rajput

To whomsoever it concerns,

Kartavya Virya singh Jameval was absolutely right in what he discussed.

At the end of the vedic era,the vedic kings divided their kingdom, during their lifetimes, into small principalities which were ruled by their sons and appointed kin. Hence thats the root of the word Rajput-- abbrv of Rajan-putra (Son of king), cos they were literally sons of kings and not actual solemn Kings per se.

Now it is accepted in Hindu society that the earliest known monarch with his capital at Ayodhya, was Iksvaku, who founded the aryan solar dynasty of Ksatriyas. Now he is mentioned In pali buddhist scriptures as King Okkaka.

Lord Ram too had divided the kingdom, during his lifetime, into small principalities. He coronated his eldest son Kusa as the king of Kusavati present Kushinagar, where buddha breathed his last.

So as per what ive written Lord Ram was A Rajah and his son Kusa was a 'raj-put'

As a rule No tom, dick or harry in ancient India could assume the title of Rajput, without having a lineage going up till the ancient kings. Yes ,there could be exceptions to that rule, ( as what is mentioned Shivaji had done when he coronated himself )but those examples are few and far between.

To whoever wrote -->The word rajput comes into play after 5-6th century AD. As such Rajput is NOT synonymous with ancient kshatriya in the Vedic hymns

Purusha shukta rigveda--"Kshatriya" is not mentioned there---The word mentioned in the rigvedic hymn is "Rajanya".:)

Siddhartha ( Gautam Buddha's ) army commander was a person called Bikram Singha and he was also a rajput--The word Rajput is mentioned in buddhist literature-and that was around the 5-6th CENTURY B.C

(Bows down to Kartavya Virya singh Jameval )

best regards, -Shonan Talpade

The word rajput comes into play after 5-6th century AD. As such Rajput is NOT synonymous with ancient kshatriya in the Vedic hymns

Omer Khan--Pakistani I assume ? .LOL. Omer Khan,I have heard Islamic propaganda saying that Lord Shri Ram and Lord Shri Krishna were descended from the middle eastern tribal, ass-riding ,camel herding and date chewing Solomon and Abraham.

This is perfect !..Now we shall have Islamic mullahs teaching us the esoteric meaning of the vedas or something.

Omer Khan , Kindly stick to your koran and your hadiths and satisfy yourself with the camel race mythology there. This isnt your cup of tea.

---Shonan Talpade

The word rajput comes into play after 5-6th century AD. As such Rajput is NOT synonymous with ancient kshatriya in the Vedic hymns. It is a medieval ranking of the ruling class in north and western part of southern asia and does not designate common desecnt or ethnicity but a rank acquired. Rajputs are indistinguishable from other folks of their respective region, and show a huge variety in their phenotype. So to say that they are all generally taller, fairer and more "meditterannnid" than other peoples of northwestern region in India is false. --Omer Khan

Feel free to make those changes. IMHO, this article still reads too much like a 19th-century Romantic view of the Rajputs. Perhaps I can't see it due to the deficiency of my "western" mind, but most of the generally-accepted histories I have read, by both westerners and Indians, can't document an unbroken line between ancient Kshatriyas and modern Rajputs, much less a 7000 year pedigree. That is not to say it isn't true, but there just doesn't seem to be much in the way of solid evidence. Tom Radulovich 21:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article became part of the apparently Rajasthani nationalism inspired anonymous POV -campaign by 61.17.113.245 (et al.) over at Kshatriya. It probably needs NPOVing (or reversion) and cleanup.

I do not know the etymology of Rajput (rajaputra seems fair enough), but it may be disputed, note Talk:Kshatriya:

"-put" in "Rajput" is not a sanskrit suffix for son. Raj-put originated from the word Rajputana (a mixed word variation from the sanskrit word rAjasthAna, the region of royal palaces). The word is not ancient and has no reference in the Vedic texts.

-- Dbachmann 10:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1)Rajput comes from sanskrit Rajanya + putra. Rajanya-- Royal /King. putra--- son.

2) Rajasthan-- Land of kings and Rajas and NOT region of royal palaces. That would be 'Mahal stan' or Haveli stan in the rajasthani language.

I would agree. I was only pointing out that there seem to be people contesting this. Dbachmann 09:22, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

3) I have never heard of the phenomenon called "Rajasthani Nationalism' ??

wonder what that could be. If someone could kindly enlighten me .

with best regards, Kartavya Virya Singh Jamval.

call it "Rajput Chauvinism", then. Fact is that somebody seems terribly intent on emphasizing that a) Kshatriya=Rajput and b) "originally" Kshatriyas were "above" Brahmins, without giving any historical justification whatsoever. *shrug* Dbachmann 09:22, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hunnish origin theory

In all fairness, I think we can remove the reference to Huns, if our Rajput readers find this idea so offensive: It's just speculation anyway. By saying that their origins are obscure, we are basically implying that they may or may not have a hunnic strain. dab 20:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the best solution. You don't burn books simply because somebody's offended by what's in them. It is speculation I suppose, but one with a scholarly pedigree. (I mean, I assume we have articles on scientific racism and creationism and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and so on – doesn't mean we endorse such beliefs.) I suggest it might be better to cite where such opinions come from: for example, the sceptical and Western-educated Indian historian Romila Thapar, who makes this argument for the origins of the Rajputs in Volume I of her History of India. Then our Rajput readers can give evidence to support why they feel Ms Thapar is wrong, as K V S J has begun to do below. Cheers, QuartierLatin1968 16:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr Dbachmann,

I appreciate your knowledge on Indiology and indeed much of the information you wrote is quite accurate,but you still havent removed the references connecting rajput lineage to the Huns and that we are descended from the invaders who attacked India from the northwest.

So I am deleting that myself, if there's no objection.

You gave the reference of the manu smriti for the hierarchy of races and castes. Thats excellent..BUT theres a slight problem....the Manu smriti is a law book .Its not a religious treatise.

actually nowhere in the hindu scriptures will you find the superiority of any caste over the other. if you give me the example of the Purusha shakta of the rigveda, it outlines the function..not the hierarchy of the castes.races Its by spiritual and mystical right that the Kshatriya was on the top of the society ( which I was 'shouting' about all this while.)

secondly, sir, If i may say so..most of the information that you have posted here are direct copy pastes of other webpages.

I can prove it to you,sentence by sentence with the corresponding website/page that you have copy pasted from.(if you wish) e.gs..britannica encyclopaedia etc.

I dont know about copyright violations etc, but this doesnt reflect well with your own view of objective and sincere research.

Thirdly,

Your borrowed claim that the Rajputs have obscure ancestry beyond 1000AD in the kshatriya webpage..is..(if i may use the word )in utter ignorance.

The Mewar Line goes up to the Era of Lord Ram (around 5000 BC ) if that is imaginable and conceivable by western society. They even have records which i believe arent doctored by any brahmins as in Shivaji's case. They are kept in the archives of Udaipur palace in rajasthan till date.

Mr Dbachmann,I frankly dont know and dont care about the allegmanic race...but I respect people who are aware of their own roots. my regards to you. And sir thank you very very much :) ..i know my own lineage..descended from King Prithu of the vedic age around 700 BC.

we dont need to prove such things..its only the limited western mind, which doesnt think its evolutionarily,socially and chronologically possible due to its own conditionings.

Mr. Dbachmann, it was nice having a discourse with you ( which i cant say for the other belligerent, internet-learnt morons here ).

my best regards,

your friendly neighbourhood rajput chauvinist.

K V S J.

"Possibly" Raj-putra

Is there any confusion whatsoever that Rajput comes from Raj-putra?

doesnt matter if indians belive it or not!!

Im Rajput, of NARO "goth"/clan and im a muslim also... there are many rajputs in pakistan....

I'm reinstating the above comment, not because I agree with it especially, but because it is extremely bad practice to delete somebody's comments simply because you disagree with them. Engage their ideas, don't censor them out! Cheers, QuartierLatin 1968 14:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Baseless arguments against Rajputs

There are many Indian counterparts that counter the fact that there can be Muslim Rajputs. You are fundamentally wrong. Simply Muslim/Hindu refers to faith regardless of your social standing. There have been Muslim Rajas from both the Kokar, Janjua, Bhatti, Rathore and Chauhan clans all Suryavansh and Chandravansh lineages. The term Raja is just that, 'King/lord ruler' of a region. Their faith is regardless of their status. A ruler no matter what his faith is still a ruler, so the question of outcaste or leaving the Hindu faith means that you are no longer King is ludicrous as nowhere in history has this occurred or been accepted. There have been many non-Hindu Rajas and Samraats such as Chandragupt Maurya and Ashoka Maurya who were Jain and Bhuddist respectively yet they were still rulers? Does this mean that the title of King/Ruler which essentially is what Raja means is only exclusive to the Hindus? Obviously not.

Many references are made by people questioning the lineages of many well known Rajput clans as to their descendancy, posing the point that they may be of Hunnic or Scythic origin and somehow amalgamated into the Hindu Caste system. This again is purely speculation and no more. The Rajputs themselves are available to provide evidence of their lineages undisturbed over centuries back to prominent Kings/Rajas and should the needs arise, many such houses in India and Pakistan have provided so, re: the Rathores to Lord Rama, the Kauravs of Sri Lanka (Kshatriya Society) to the Kurus, the Janjua to Arjun Pandav, the Bhatti to Rai Jaisal of the Yadav clan, and many more. The Varna was very dynamic and many Rajputs were downgraded to Jats during the Hindu reign pre Islamic times on account of their poor service as rulers, and many outsiders were upgraded to Rai/Raja/Rajput status through might and war became Rajas i.e. the Ghakkar/Kokar who are essentially Iranian Sassanids, but gained Royal title and acceptance as one through sheer determination and unrelenting campaigns against other powerful clans.

The question of religion influencing social status in this respect is therefore unjustified and malicious. The kings remained Kings regardless of their new found faiths. This has been the case in many countries let alone India.

Rajputs

"Sons of the Kings"

If the arguement were baseless, then perhaps it would not have stirred so much passion. And perhaps you have clearly misunderstood the basic fact that Rajput does not immediately imply that someone is a king, it is a Jati within the Varna System. Furthermore, once someone belongs to Islam, they should follow the dictates and practices of that faith, but trying to keep yourself on both sides in order to gain priviledges from one group and status from another simply does not work.

The entire concept of Rajputs is one that is not understood by any non-Rajputs but only those who were born and brought in the noble families and bloodlines of the Rajput lineages. Our beliefs and practices, our philosophy, our martial training, the code of ethics, our view of life and death, none of these have been understood or studied by non-Rajputs, and yet it is so simple for the many to simply comment on what we should and should not accept.

It has become en vogue for people to simply claim that they are Rajputs without any understanding of the price that must be paid for carrying such a title. Our ancestors, whose blood flows through our veins, would have wanted us to choose death before dishonour and thus we have remained Rajputs and not subordinates to a foreign land or philosophy.

Although it may be the case that an individual could be descended from Rajputs and be a muslim is very likely since Rajput history dictates the forcible conversions of many Rajputs who were given the choice of conversion or having to witness their families destroyed in front of them. We have the Islamic historians to thank for recording these atrocities which would have otherwise been forgotten to the dusts of time.

Although many Rajputs chose death (such as the great Jauhars of Chittor and Ranthambore), others were subjugated and converted. However, Islam dictates that there are no ties with the ancestral faith or culture of a people once they have become muslims, and thus if someone claims to be a muslim and a rajput, that simply is not being true to their faith.

Islam is a beautiful concept and it should be of the utmost importance for any muslim to be true to his/her faith, but by claiming to be Rajputs as well, is a desire to hang on to their "Prestige" which is only found in the culture of an alien faith being Hinduism. You do not see Persians claiming titles of non-Islamic origins or pre-Islamic status, they have adapted and changed with their circumstance of being a conquered but proud people.

Another question comes to mind, not every muslim can be descended from a Rajput, so why are there no claims of Brahmin-Muslim, Vashya-Muslim, Shudra-Muslim, Buniya-Muslim etc etc etc, and yet you will find so many claiming to be Rajputs and yet do not follow even a thread of Rajput culture or practice. Instead the so-called Rajput Muslim has a vicious contempt for his/her ancestors (if they are Rajput at all) which is not a Rajput trait, furthermore they view Arabs and Turks as being superior to them, which again is not a Rajput trait. Thus, it has also been stated that Rajput is a Status, and that in a sense is true, however it is a Status within the Hindu hierarchy, and for one to claim they are a Rajput and then a Muslim, really does not fit since this status does come with rules, code of ethics, practices and rituals. In order to maintain that status one must live as a Rajput, not simply claim to be one.

Your claims about the origins of Rajput families is also inaccurate. It is sad that we could not have met over a coffee to further discuss this matter. However, as my Muslim friends have stated, it is simply against Islam to claim such a status in order to have prestige over others especially if that prestige comes from a foreign culture which is not Islamic.

Furthermore, your sense of history is highly inaccurate since Chandragupta Maurya was not Jain, he was a Hindu, as was Asoka who then became a Buddhist. (Too bad you were not at the University of Toronto, we could have had a good laugh with your sense of Rajput history).

Your opening statement: “There are many Indian counterparts that counter the fact that there can be Muslim Rajputs. You are fundamentally wrong. Simply Muslim/Hindu refers to faith regardless of your social standing. There have been Muslim Rajas from both the Kokar, Janjua, Bhatti, Rathore and Chauhan clans all Suryavansh and Chandravansh lineages. The term Raja is just that, 'King/lord ruler' of a region. Their faith is regardless of their status. A ruler no matter what his faith is still a ruler, so the question of outcaste or leaving the Hindu faith means that you are no longer King is ludicrous as nowhere in history has this occurred or been accepted.”

First of all to be muslim and claim divine origin from the Sun and Moon is against Islam. Secondly, Rajput does not automatically designate someone as a King, thus your argument does not hold, since this is not what is being discussed. Thirdly, you can loose your Jati and become an outcaste, and this is where the reasoning lies, which you obviously do not understand.

You yourself have stated: “The Varna was very dynamic and many Rajputs were downgraded to Jats during the Hindu reign pre Islamic times on account of their poor service as rulers……”

Thus you also state that one can loose their Jati, and in the extreme case one is an outcaste once they leave the Hindu fold (Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist etc etc.), they are an outcaste, and this is in accordance with the Bhagavad Gita, the highest authority for the doctrine of Rajput codes and ethics.

To simply throw around a few names without credible historical accuracy does not make one's arguement stand solid.

About Rajputs, how should I know? Well, simply because I am one. About the royal houses? Well, anyone from the Royal Houses of Patiala, Nabha, Nepal, Mewar, Nahan, Kashmir, Baroda, Bijawer etc will recognise my words since I have discussed this before with family members, and I am after all their cousin (I will sign off with my designation so that any relative will recognise who I am). On that note, I have other work to get to, as for the Muslims who are confused on their identity, I really feel bad for them.

Rajputs became famous due to our brave resistance and sacrifice against the Islamic Invasion, thus we owe this fame to Islam who gave us a good fight and chose to record our heroic resistance and the defeat of the invaders in Islamic history books. However, if a Muslim claims he is a Rajput, he is simply confused about where his loyalties should lie.

A Muslim should be proud of his/her Islamic culture, religion and society. In the same token, even if one could be descended from an ancestral home which is not Arabic, once one is Islamic, they should be fully committed to Islam and follow the dictates of Islam which simply put states that one should have no loyalties to other nations except Islam. If one claims to be a Rajput, that is seriously putting to question their loyalty and faith towards Islam.

Rajputs can only be Hindu or Sikh, nothing more, nothing less.

-Kunwarji (Ojaswi Kunwar, Projawal Chamba Tara)

I fully agree with Kunwar Ji about his views, which is true, about rajputs. The respect and prominence Rajputs got was due to their ethics and code of conducts. Their bravery against imposing opposition and their determination against all odds. It was their conviction and a courage to live up to that conviction no matter what the cost is rajputi. Those who could not perform to that highest level of idealism have lost their status as a Rajput. If some ones ancestors have abondoned their faith and conviction for comforts and safety,they had lost their status as a rajput hence they are not Rajputs. Period. No disacussion. Akbar married a hindu princesse but their son was never considered a Rajput even when they were ruling most part of india. So if some muslims became raja or ruler that does not mean they will became rajput. So ruling status was nothing to do with being rajput even though most of the rajputs were rulers. So guys get over it.

Dinesh Singh Naruka

edits by wisesabre

i have added some rajput clan.im not sure they are rajputs clans (as we call them 'Goth')but what i know is that they are eguialent to bhattis(who were already in the list).

2ndly people in Pakistan have mixed there 'goth' with the villages or places where they lived in India. Rajputs in Pakistan some times prefer to introduce themselves according to there places in India

im sure that Naru is a rajput 'Goth' equivalent to Bhattis. you should check about others. الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 18:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Gotra

This is further evidence that there are no Rajputs in Pakistan, since the concept of Gotra/Goth is not understood. If one is a muslim, they do not have a Gotra anymore, and any muslim who is holding on to their Gotra/Goth, is simply holding on to their Hindu roots which is not allowed in Islam.

This is a total conflict of identity. And these "New" clans are not part of the Rajput clans which are listed carefully in Pushkar. Being a Rajput is not some abstract concept. Neither is Gotra, and if some Muslims are claiming they have Gotras, then that brings into serious question on whether they are muslim or are they Kafirs acting as muslims because they hold on to their non-islamic origins.

Also, Rajputs even today never, and I repeat never use their villages as their Gotra/Goth, this is a practice used by tribals and other subcastes, but not Rajputs.

It really makes one wonder, are these guys proud of their non-Islamic ancestry or are they proud to be Muslims? One cannot be both, that would mean that anyone who is proud to be a Rajput and yet is a Muslim would then feel a sense of anger against their fellow Pakistanis since the Rajput would feel a sacred loyalty to the sacred soil of Chittor and would help fight foreign invaders. And yet this concept does not seem to sink into those who would claim to be Rajputs and yet are not willing to even follow an inch of the culture or traditions of the Rajput.

By claiming to be one does not make one a Rajput, especially when these Goth/Gotra do not exist, and neither do these so-called clans.

Furthermore, Rao is a Title not a Rajput clan, that in itself shows that the entire thing about "Muslim Rajputs" is a complete farce.

One should be proud to be a Muslim, but by claiming to have pride in something which is unIslamic is showing disloyalty to Islam and showing that these people wish they were never converted. Rajput history is about resisting the Islamic Invasion, not converting, Rajputs chose death rather than becoming Muslims, thus this idea of "Muslim Rajputs" is a conflict and an oxymoron.

-Kunwarji (Ojaswi Kunwar, Projawal Chamba Tara)

Reply from Wisesabre

You could b right about Rao, im also not sure.what do you think Rajputs who converted to Islam what do they call themselves? Does convertion changes your blood ?We are proud being Muslims. and Islam does not prohabits Clans.Rajput is not a religion.and what about bhattis , my neighbour was bhatti (muslim) and Aziz Bhatti was martyre in 65 war at lahore.

Even if you are right ,its POV to remove my edits on the basis that we are no longer Rajputs.Its not the matter few hundred people, Its the matter of thousands to Muslim rajputs.

I didnt said that Goth=village.

The other way could be like , Ok you are right.There are rajputs in Pakistan who are Muslims.and they are proud being muslim.Where should I list them?Is it now OK? or Not?

be cool الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 07:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

and by the way doesnt Aziz bhattis being rajput and being in army proves that he is rajput :)الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 07:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

My return Reply to Wisesabre

Even in your statement, you are not sure about the term Rao. That simply shows that you are not sure about who is and isn't a Rajput. Rao is a title, but then again, there are Rao(s) who are Vaishyas (business caste: the Jati being Buniyas), thus someone with the surname Rao means nothing.

When Rajputs were converted (and very few were) they were no longer part of the Varna System which in turn had a Jati system where Rajput is a designation of a stratification within that society, but it has to be a Vedic/Hindu society. And thus, is any Brahmins, Shudras, Buniya/Vaishyas were also converted, then they too also lost their designation and status.

If anyone was converted, then yes they lost their status and are now part opf the Islamic society. And thus even if there was a Rajput who was converted, he/she lost their status and is no longer a Rajput, because Rajputs were supposed to choose death before dishonour and if they converted then it was considered a dishonour, and thus they have lost everything. If conversion were an accepted matter then Rajputs would not have been so famous, and we are famous for our resistance against the Islaic invasion. That is where our fame and history lies.

Conversion changes loyalties, while the Rajput is loyal to the land and religion of his/her ancestors (India/Nepal and Hinduism), a Pakistani/Muslim is loyal to the Middle East and Islam. It is a clear conflict of Interest.

I never said Rajput is a religion, but it is part of a religious stratification of society, based of Vedic/Hindu priniciples set down to us by our Hindu ancestors, Rishis, and furthermore clearly stated by our Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita.

Gotra/Goth are derived from our Vedic ancestors (Rishis) and thus since you stated "rajput goth", that in itself shows that you are confused on the topic.

Aziz Bhatti may have had Rajput forefathers, but he is no longer a Rajput, he is a muslim and chose to fight against the land of his ancestors (India) thus even if he was brave, it is not a Rajput trait to fight against your ancestral origins for a foreign power.

Thousands may claim to be Muslim Rajputs, it still does not make them Rajput because they do not follow any of the codes, traditions, ethics, nor do they have the loyalty to our Gods, our Ancestors, nor are they willing to defend the land of their ancestors from foreign invaders.

A Rajput will give up his life but not convert, and thus in his controversial yet astounding masterpiece, Col. James Tod of the British Army wrote his monumentous work "The Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan" in which page after page narrated the sacrifice and bravery of Rajputs against Islamic invasions. Rajputs were the vanguard of Hindu India in the face of the Islamic onslaught.

Now the question comes where do we list the people you are talking about as your last question asks. Well, they are listed along with the millions who were put to the sword during the invasion of India by the Islamic hordes.

I quote:

Will Durant (1885-1981) the well-known American historian,
says in the book The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage page 459:

"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within." Almost all the Muslims of South Asia are descendants of weaker elements of the population who had succumbed to forcible Islamic conversion." )

"The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history". The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride of the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period. "

(source: The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage - By Will Durant page 459).

Also I give you another quote:

Irfan Husain a freelance columnist from Pakistan has observed:

”While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan.

The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after they were buried.

Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster. Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful.

These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage. When these warriors settled in India, they ruled as absolute despots over a cowed Hindu populace. For generations, their descendants took their martial superiority over their subjects for granted. "... And a substantial number of Pakistani Muslims are secretly convinced that they are inherently superior to the Hindus. One irony, of course, is that contrary to their wishful thinking, the vast majority of Muslims in the subcontinent have more Hindu blood in their veins than there is Arab, Afghan, Turkish or Persian blood. Many of the invaders took Hindu wives and concubines."

(source: Demons from the past - By Ifran Husain - dailytimes.com.pk).

And thus, all these people have lost their Hindu identity, castes and Jatis, and must create new ones, but they must be Islamic ones, not ones which have Hindu origins or ties to Hinduism. By claiming to be Rajputs, you are saying that you are all the offspring of defeated Hindu warriors, where is the pride in that?

The people of Pakistan are the descendants of the defeated Hindu populations that were converted by force, this is a historical fact recorded by Muslim historian who were very precise and amazing in their record keepings.

You were wondering if I am right and why I removed the edits you had placed, its because I am a known authority on Rajputs with the Professor Emeritus for Sotuh Asian Studies at the University of Toronto, since I am a Rajput and belong to several of the Royal houses of North India and Nepal.

Although there is much that I do not agree with on the article written about Rajput(s), this issue about Muslims and Rajputs is something that has to be clearly defined, since many imposters try to lay claim to the glories of these warriors which have few parallels in world history.

What I have to say and know is not something of mere armchair scholarship but is my identity, life and soul.

-Kunwarji (Ojaswi Kunwar, Projawal Chamba Tara)

Reply to Kunwarji-

You imply that Rajputs glory was attained by fighting the armies of Muslims. We must clear one point here;

a) Not all the so called Muslim kings who invaded India were perfect Muslims and in fact many of them never followed the basics of the faith. It is also a noteworthy point that many Islamic Luminaries of the time rebelled against these same so called Muslim Kings, so please be distinct with your point. This is also in view of the point that great many Kings of Ancient India although followed the precepts of Hinduism were less Hindu in their acts.

b) Rajputs glory is simple, it's in their nobility and bravery as well as their accomplishments. If it was just because they fought Muslims and were defeated, then that is a poor identity for us. Our glory precedes and predates these conquests. This point must be made clear. There are many other castes which are always trying to undermine us, let us not in fight amongst ourselves regarding our OWN history and significance.

c) Sikhs state that they are not Hindu and do not believe in the Varna that some people are born lower. Then how can Sikhs also not be outcaste by your definition that when one leaves Hinduism he is outcaste? I disagree, I believe that it is a warrior spirit, way of life which if anyone commits can become a 'Kshatriya'. You may not accept this, but an actual Pundit has assured me of this who is a greater authority on the Varna I believe.

Another also interesting point, I have cut and pasted a page for your reference;

Thoughts About Castes From Mahabharata Retold by- Chandra Holm Chandra Holm is originally from Ramanagaram, Karnataka. She holds a doctorate in Metallurgical Engineering from McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. She currently teaches at the University of Applied Sciences in Olten, Switzerland. Since a very early age, Chandra held a strong passion for literature. She is the author of 'Dasavatara,Die zehn Gestalten des indischen Gottes Vischnu', a German book containing reproductions of beautiful miniature Pahari paintings from the mountain region of India. Chandra was also involved in translating into English the book 'Bilder des Nainsukh von Guler' by Eberhard Fischer and B.N.Goswamy. She hosts a web site purely devoted to the rich Indian literature- Chandra's Book page http://ch.8m.com. Nearly 7 years ago, she started, in Zurich, a literature club on Indian literature. She also helps organize concerts of Indian classical music on regular basis in the Rietberg Museum in Zurich. Chandra is married to a German physicist, and is the mother of two young boys.

(The epic Mahabharata is an unparalleled source of stories. Every time I read the epic, I discover something new in it, learn something more from it. One of my favourite stories from Mahabharata relates the conversation between Dharmaraja, the eldest of the Pandava brothers, and a python, on the importance of the castes. The incidence takes place after Dharmaraja loses the game of dice, and loses, as a consequence, his empire and all his wealth. Dharmaraja offers his brothers Bhima, Arjuna, Nakula and Sahadeva as bets, and loses the game. Then he bets himself, and later even his wife, Draupadi. Every time Dharmaraja loses the game to his cousin, Dhuryodhana, the King of the Kauravas. At this point the elders in the Kaurava court intervene, and Dhuryodhana reluctantly agrees to set the Pandavas and Draupadi free. On one condition. The Pandavas and Draupadi have to retire to the forest and live there for 12 years, and they have to spend one more year in disguise.)

The Pandavas are quite content to live in the forest, spending their time in the company of other sages. Dharmaraja enjoys discussing with these elders the intricacies of dharma. On one such day, Bhima sets out to hunt. When after a long time Bhima does not return, the brothers and Draupadi get worried. Finally, Dharmaraja himself sets out in search of Bhima. Soon he hears Bhima's cry for help. Hurrying in the direction of the voice, Dharmaraja sees Bhima, who has been attacked by an enormous python that has wound itself around him, making him totally immobile. Seeing his mighty brother struggling like a helpless man in the grip of the python, Dharmaraja is shocked. With tears streaming down his face, he starts praying to Krishna.

Just then, the python addresses him in a human voice, and says, "Oh, King, Dharmaraja! I understand how unhappy you are at seeing your brother being imprisoned by me. I will happily let him go if you can correctly answer a couple of my questions." Dharmaraja replies, "Oh, Holy being! You are certainly not an ordinary python. You seem to be testing us - for whatever reason. Please state your questions. I will try to answer them to the best of my abilities."

The python asks the Pandava brother, "Tell me, oh king, who is a Brahmin ?" Dharmaraja's answer is clear. He says, "He who speaks the truth, who is patient, and is compassionate, whose character is without any blemish, who gives alms - he is a Brahmin." The Python continues, " What if a Shudra has these qualities?" Without any hint of hesitation, Dharmaraja replies, "A Shudra who has these qualities is not a Shudra. if a Brahmin does not have these qualities, he is certainly not a Brahmin." The python is not satisfied. It asks further, "If it is the character which makes a man a brahmin, what is the use of the caste system? What role does birth play?" Dharmaraja continues calmly: "These days castes are very mixed. Therefore the caste cannot be determined by birth alone. There are many examples, where the caste of the child is determined by the caste of the mother. At the same time, there are also plenty of examples, where the caste of the father decides the caste of the child.

The sage Vedavyasa was born of a fisher woman. But he is considered to be a Brahmin, because his father was one. The same fisher woman later married king Shantanu, and was considered from that time onwards as belonging to the Kshatriya caste. Their sons, Chitrangada and Vichitravirya, were considered to be Kshatriyas. Unfortunately both these princes died without having sired children. For the sake of the continuation of the royal lineage, their queens were asked to bear children from the sage Vedavyasa. The great sage consented to undertake this task so that the dynasty will continue. Pandu, my father, and Dhritarashtra were born as a result, and they were considered to be Kshatriyas. Vidura, who was fathered by Vedavyasa at the same time, is considered to be a Shudra because his mother was a servant. And look at us, the five Pandava brothers. We are all born of gods. Yet we are considered to be Kshatriyas. So, how can birth determine the caste? How can one son born of a sage be a Kshatriya, and the other one a Shudra? Birth can determine the caste only if there is no mixing up amongst the castes. When the castes are mixed up, as it has been happening for so long now, birth alone cannot decide the caste of a person.

Thus I am convinced that it is not birth that determines the caste to which one belongs, but it is the character that decides. In my opinion, it is the holy Gayatri who is the true mother of a Brahmin, and the teacher who is the true father. Thus that person is a real Brahmin who has studied the Vedas, whose character is without blemishes, who strives to realise the Brahman, the supreme entity."

Rajput is just that, a son of a Rajanya, a chief. If you disagree and state that it isn't lineage based then you are wrong again. If it is a way of life, then both Islam, Sikhism and even the Japanese Samurai code all dictate such a way of life. Yet some of them were downgraded from their status, but not their bloodline. I have yet to meet a Jatt who is not proud of his lineage.

d) Muslim Rajputs aren't a new phenomenon, they are over 800years old. The code of Rajputs isn't a religious one, but an honour one. Islam dictates that to hold all that is pure and discard all that is useless. Being a Muslim Rajput doesn't mean that you discard even the intellectual and pure elements of other religions. The codes of honour are very much consistent with Islam except stubborness. A Rajput who is stubborn and doesn't open his mind to the truth when he sees it then he is stubborn, and many a Rajput has been downgraded due to this.

Yes Muslims are no longer Hindu. They do live in the same society though. They are no longer within the stratosphere of the Varna, but believe that ALL men have the capacity to become bigger men should they want. Yes they are outcastes from the Hindu faith which they left, but their lineages are not less respected by their Brahmin or Hindu counterparts, who understand them. For example, the family line of Muslim Bhattis will always enjoy their lineage as Yadavs and having as connection with Lord Krishna who many Muslims believe in also (so please do your research properly before making your 'well founded remarks'. Your handful of Muslims dont speak for the majority, obviously.) Janamejayan Pandavas who have converted to Islam, will always enjoy their lineage with Arjuna Pandava, but that doesn't degrade their sense of nobility or martial spirit. Examples of these are that even today some of them are leaders in their respective Martial occupations. 3 Generals of the Pakistani armies have been Janamejayans. This is their heritage which even Islam states that a good pedigree is an excellent attribute to have. This 'heritage' which Islam refers to isn't meaning of great leaders of poor character, it means even common men, but with noble character. Just like it also implies Noble or Kingly status of noble character which many of these dynasties were. Your point regarding the Gita is well made regarding it's instruction to the ethics of Rajputs etc. Who better to understand this than the sons of the father who first heard it, Arjuna himself? Just because we follow Islam doesn't mean good ethics and morales of our original faith cannot still be followed.

e) Your point that Muslims Rajputs are claiming descendancy of defeated Hindu dynasties is also erroneous because we both know the Mughal Dynasty was beyond all Rajput might which was clearly evident in the Rajputs tributary statuses which in itself is evident of your contradiction that it is 'against their honour to be defeated and accept any foreign leadership'. I believe the Mughals were foreign? Mughal Akbar ensured this contradiction. I believe many Houses receieved tributary status and continued their rule. Just as in even the British period. Infact many fmous Rajputs gave their daughters hands to Akbar himself in marriage to solidify themselves with them. So why forget this and try to reinstate something in an attempt to reclaim a false glory? Muslim Rajputs state their pedigree and their pride in it which is not against Islam, unless they assert their authority over others of lesser pedigree to make themselves feel superior and others inferior, which is wrong and unfair.

f) The historical Muslim accounts that you refer to regarding the defeat and conversion of Rajputs being amazing etc. must also be put into context that these accounts were very much glorifies of their rulers and added much spice to stories. If you have ever read one which I am sure you will have done, then you will agree. Yes some leaders were converted by (again) these so called rulers, but the 1st rule of Islamic faith is "There is no compulsion in faith" i.e. you cannot force Islam on anyone. As I stated before these so called Muslim kings were simply tytrannical kings, even the Muslims themselves opposed them many a time. There were houses that accepted Islam without compulsion such as the Kokhars, Janjua, Bhatti and some Mohyals such as the Balis.

g) Speaking of Balis, you question why majority of Pakistanis use Rajput status but where are the Brahmins? The Balis are a Mohyal (Brahmin Warrior) caste and are great in number in Kahuta district of Pakistan and also huge in number in Punjab Pakistan. They are predominantly Muslim. This is just one example I can cite for you at this time. They are still staunch supporters of the Janamejayans or Janjuas who they have been in service to since they converted over 800 years ago.

h) The Iranian Muslims who you refer to do infact have a strong element which strongly believes in and supports their Aryan lineage. They don't appear openly so, as infact nor do the Muslim Rajputs either. Have you ever seen a Muslim Rajput with a tikka on his forehead and the rest of the Regalia? Just because it is not apparent to the eye, doesn't mean the passion is not in the heart.

j) You have claimed that some Muslims believe the Turks and Arabs are superior to them Martially. This is a simple view borne out of the fact that these races are acknowledged as warlords of a conquering nature. Yes Rajputs were very powerful in their era, but were ultimately only based in India. They never conquered beyond it's own boundaries, possibly due to the civil wars between feuding Kingdoms. However the Afghans and Turks both conquered huge lands and ruled over the said Rajputs very brutally indeed as you have mentioned above. Then later, the Mughals in fact were descendants of world conquerors (Tamerlane and ofcourse maternally through Genghis Khan, the world's greatest known conqueror who's fighting capabality needs no elaboration.) The Mughals power and Martial capability was proven by their acceptance (by force or alliance) by the Rajputs. Only once an Arab (Muhammad Ibn Qasim)came to battle in India and he easily defeated Raja Dahir of what is now known as Sindh. He was a young teenager and general of an army coming to a foreign land who defeated a strong Rajput. That's why they are known as Martially superior by those who deem such things as important. Instead of engaging them and elaborating your point, it does no good to ridicule this simple view, which in itself isn't all wrong in the above stated sense (Martial capability as a race according to proven track record) If we go by this logic that a Martial capability of a race determines it's superiority then Rajputs are nowhere near the accomplishments of the Mongolian empire. But do we see such pride in them?

I believe you are misunderstood about our meaning of Muslim Rajputs. Yes we no longer rule kingdoms etc. (i.e. the status of Kings is no longer there) but our tribal identity is that we carry some of our Hindu traditions which are consistent with Islam. Other non Islamic traditions are also widely practiced which again as long as they are not in contradiction with Islam are permitted. In fact a well known Muslim act of Qawali is alien in other Muslim lands but great many Muslims follow it here in India and Pakistan. It is also backed by many Scholars too. Yes some scholars disagree but they are less in number and extreme in their views. So in answer to your predicament, we Muslim Rajputs are large in numbers, proud of ancestral lineage where it helps our faith and our adherence to it. We are still Martial in our traditions which I am sorry but our upbringing and blood traits cannot degrade simply because you are in such an opinion with other foreign universities. We are not Hindu Rajputras and do not believe that we were born of the Moon and Sun at all. But we do believe in the nobility of our blood and ancestors and will strive to reach it, as did they. Valiance, bravery, nobility and Martial spirit are not exclusive to a Hindu culture alone. Many faiths and cultures will prove this. We are Indianised Muslims and will invariably continue to be which again isn't prohibited by Islam. There a great many Muslim Saints especially the famed one of Rajasthan, Ajmer who preached this view and he was Persian by descent!

You say Muslim Rajputs must make a unique identity of their own, which is different to the Hindu one. I say that this is already in existence. We can even be considered a hybrid of sorts.

The only difference between me and another Hindu Rajput of the same clan would be by faith. Our blood would essentially be the same, our upbringing would be similar although fundamentally not identical i.e. The Hindus wouldn't observe Ramadan, the Muslim one wouldn't bow down to an Idol of a Deity. The nature of their blood and principle upbringing would still be in the same Martial and noble vein which even you have stated 'Rajput isn't a Religion'. Therefore by this logic it is only the difference of Faith, not blood. So how can one lose his lineage by converting his faith. This doesn't make sense. If it's lineage which makes a Rajput then all sons of the Rajanya are Rajputras. Blood will always prevail to it's traits. Another good example of this is the Ghakkar/Kokkar Sassanids. They were ousted from Iran and they gained settlement in India. They were a Royal Dynasty which ruled Iran for 600years. During their stay in India, they rested not on their laurels but fought for many centuries. They adopted the Hindu faith for a period, then accepted Islam (the majority). Their martial blood never let up regardless the faiths they converted to. The mentality was essentially the same throughout the centuries, over a 1000yrs of which is recorded in India history. Does this mean that they were only noble, valiant and martial whilst they were Hindus? They weren't Chandravanshi, Suryavanshi or Agnikula, yet they were called Rajput by the Pundits of their respective conquered regions due to their warlike nature and noble brave acts. Many authentic Rajput houses even engaged in marriage between these 'New Rajputs' despite the well known tradition that Rajputs don't marry non Rajputs. This essentially Iranian Dynasty which interchanged between 3 faiths in the last millenium has retained this status from the REAL Rajputs who had power and prestige of the day (not us modern day speculators- but the living and breathing Royals of the Rajput era. I don't consider todays 'Rajput Houses' as one of those, who are powerless remnants of the past.) It is a well known fact that Scythic and Hunnic tribes were absorbed into the fold as Kshatriyas/Rajputs too. So even lineage itself has been questioned here. It is therefore more status based than Religion based.

I would like to apologise for any offence to you. I am extremely grateful that you have not marred Islam in anyway whilst referring to it. Your respect for Islam, your passion for the Rajput lineages and history is very much appreciated and understood. Maybe someday we will get a chance to sit and talk at length over a coffee! Never give up hope,lol!

"Comments on Wisesabre"

First of all let me say, I am impressed by your arguments about muslim rajputs, but I would like to add some thing to it. I agree with you when you say " Rajputs glory is simple, it's in their nobility and bravery as well as their accomplishments. But let me add a little to this definition.

Rajput glory is about their conviction, about their courage to stick to these conviction and  about their willingness to pay extreme price for that conviction. They never conquered vast lands and were not always victorious but still could attract highest regards from everybody. From their adversaries even, and that is unique to rajputs. Rajputs were defeated many a times. Not many vanquished races are respected as much as a rajput by even their adversaries who were with full of praise for rajputs. It was due to their fierce determination to fight for right. 

It is therefor logical to retort here "Respect for rajputs did not come from those who succumbed to sword and got converted. It came from those rajputs who endured every sort of pain and struggle but remain steadfast to their conviction. They might have lost many battles but there was a glory even in their defeat and that is also unique to rajputs in the history of mankind. Their defeat was glorious because they were always up against enormous odds but they still gave their adversaries run for their life and that is why those conqueres had respect for rajputs.

People can claim their lineage to their rajput ancestors but I do not think they have any claim to rajputi. This is not because they may not be as good as any real rajput but it is because some where up the lane some of their ancestors did not act like rajputs and thats why they have lost their share of rajput glory. in the same way an out casted son will lose his inheritence. Muslim rajputs therefore have lost their share of that rajput glory.

I do agree with you that one can attain a status as per vedic varna system but then you will have to attain what your ancestors have lost for all of you. I do not know how a muslim is going to attain that status. It is up to the muslims caliming rajput lineage to decide. Till you achieved that staus by your karma I will agree with Kunwarji that Muslim Rajput is oxymoron.

Yours Sincerely,

Dinesh Singh Naruka

whats the way out...

So whats the way out?
I think we could mention seprately the muslim rajput clans.

---

Answer to WISESSABRE

I must first state this point that I am in total agreement with the Wikipedia editors with regards to the raising and accepting the dispute of this article. It does portray a biaed view of Rajputs towards the Hindu side and doesn't actually bring into play the neutrality which is essential is such endevours. Thank you.

Secondly, there isn't a need for an alternative. Rajputs are Rajputs, that is there heritage and lineage regardless of what others believe. Whether they pray to Allah, Ram, Guru, Bhuddha or Jesus Christ. To say they are outcaste is very prejudiced because nowhere is history has a Rajput been outcasted by his community or indeed the Indian society for their conversion to Islam. This is a misconception that sadly being alleged here, which I believe is down to resentment of the Muslim rule over them. It has been stated that Hinduism Varna was quite dynamic and certain Rajputs were degraded to Jatts, (but it is believed by some historians that was due to their ignoble acts and impiety towards the people or other Kingdoms etc. It is more likely that it was due to some political reason or another and civil unrest has always been the case in India historically during the multi kingdom era.)Therefore alliances were made and the rulers deposed to simple landowners/grazers. Their lineage undoubtedly stayed the same i.e. Sidhu who are descendants of the Yaduvanshi Rai Jaisal Bhatti, but they were at some point deposed and they accepted Jatt status. To say they are now outcastes or casteless is in bad taste in my opinion and very narrow minded. Especially when one considers that great many Rajput Kingdoms became Muslim and none of the Pundits of the age or likewise Hindu Rajput allies doubted their Rajput statuses, so who are we today to question this point fundamentally when in practise during their era this wasn't so? A person's Piety and good character dictates their Varna and the fact that they may be rulers or MahaRaja's would emphasise that role more i.e. a good and just Rajput would become a noble Kshatriya. In fact we have records in scriptures of some Chandra vanshis becoming Brahmins on account of their efforts toward enlightenment. So this argument is baseless and useless by the article writer. I am Muslim and have yet attended many Hindu Mandirs/Temples for various functions and dear friends weddings and I am always welcomed as a Chandra Vanshi Rajput by the Punditji's and they are proud that I have not forgotten my roots despite changing my method of prayer/worship viz Islam. Where this is ultimate acceptance by the preachers of Hinduism then how can one such alleged Professor of the subject allege to the contrary? Obviously not on Religious authority thats for sure.

Another point worth mentioning here is that the Jati argument that is so often brought up by Kunwarji is also quite misleading. The Varna dictates it as a 'Kshatriya' ideal (state of mind and actions). Rajputra is a different entity (hereditary) from this and I will explain why. The Hindu preachers state that anyone can become a Kshatriya regardless of their lineage, it isn't hereditary (as per the above article by Ms Holm) and is a state of mind and nurturing. Therefore if one leaves Hinduism then he is no longer subject to the Varna in that sense. However if one is the son of a Royal house,he is still a Royal. Rajputra is a simple term which unfortunately is being made into something more, it's being made synonymous with Kshatriya as if one becomes one regardless of his acts and deeds just because he is born into a Rajput dynasty. The Kshatriya status is a religious ideal which one strives to meet, thus proving one isn't born a Kshatriya. It's nurtured and learnt. Rajputra is a hereditary title by it's very meaning 'Son of a Royal'. Kunwarji can argue undeniably that this isn't the case, but every Rajput will argue back that this is the case. The mere fact that one cannot 'become' a Rajput without being the son of one proves this point, yet one can become a Kshatriya according to Hindu sources regardless of lineage. I am citing just one of many internet Hindu sites confirming this.[1]

Although Muslim Rajputs may on the surface appear to be 'Kshatriya-less' or Rajputs with no Kshatriya/Martial ideals by Kunwarji's implication. This again is not the case. Islam's dictate of Jihad and having no fear of death when fighting for Truth,Justice and your ancestral land replaces this 'niche' quite easily so we Muslim Rajputs have never had a problem in that respect (there are many forms of Jihad e.g. to fight for Faith, your rights, your land, your honour, your neighbour, the poor, the outcaste etc). A simple bit of research on the article writer's part would have cleared this for him. All these points prove that a Rajput is a product of both nature and nurture. Born into a house of ideals, raised with a Martial upbringing with a strong sense of honour and nobility. Thus we Muslim Rajputs may not be Kshatriyas, but we are Mujahids, which means 'one who engages in Jihad' and the ideals of a Mujahid are much more strenuous and honour bound in the sense that we must act with the knowledge that we will be accountable to our Lord one day. So this accountability enhances the stakes. How can one state that we dont have an Islamic identity? We clearly have one. It was this similarity that made the transition from Hindu Kshatriya Rajput into a Muslim Mujahid Rajput an easy one seeing as the ideals are extremely similar. A perfect example of a perfect Mujahid Royal can be seen in Sultan Salauddin Yusuf Ayyubi of the Crusades who liberated the Holy Land from the Crusaders. His chivalry, nobility, bravery, martial prowess and strong sense of honour and mercy was renowned even by his enemies to this day. A perfect example of a Mujahid who in turn was also of noble Royal blood (being a Sultan and a strict Muslim, unlike the Mughals, Turks and Afghans that the article writer has decided to elaborate who were very poor followers of their faith.) We are also Muslim Royals of Indian origin who strive to such a standard.

To research our roots is not a questioning of our commitment to Islam. I dont know where this has been conceived. It is only natural for a son to learn of his father and forefathers, why they are famed, about their ancient Kingdoms. Should we start to follow their Hindu rituals before going out to war then one can question our commitment to our Faith. Tribal identity will always remain regardless of our financial or political influence. This is encouraged by Islam as the Holy Qur'an itself states that tribes were created in order to differentiate one from another. So now the question of commitment to Islam is thus negated. To say that our research into our lineage and retaining of it in some way implies our sadness in converting to Islam out of sentimental romance of our Hindu past is a very poor opinion on your part which I perceive is more deep rooted in Religious intolerance of Islam. Muslims are extremely proud of their ancestry throughout the world, throughout many races but Islam teaches to keep it in perspective as in your case it is easy to over romanticise this 'pride'and become extreme in your views. Gradually the inferiority/superiority complex creeps in. We are asked to abandon our old faith and adopt a new logic of sorts. This is widely practiced in many modern nations today. Why prejudice against this view if a Muslim Rajput adopts it?

Finally to Wisesabre, we need no way out. We are already here. We never left. It is the narrow minded and prejudiced who must find a way out of their state of mind and return back to the real world.

before answering any Question here you should know what is wikipedia's Neutal Point of view policy.الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 19:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

@ 212.137.45.109

Ok ! right.You seems to better knowledgeable then me , why dont you register to wikipedia and start edting this article? and please type ~~~~ at the end of you comments.
Prominent Muslim Rajput goths

1. Naru (im naru)
2. Noon (thats disputed,some think they are rajputs and some think that they are not)
3. Rao (two of my friends say that they are rajputs)
4. Ghore bahe (my relatives are ghore bahe )
5. Baghari (these are also my relatives ,but i doubt if this is there village name or there goth).
6. Bhatti (someone told me that bhattis are of two types ,one of them is rajput and the other is not, but im not sure).

This is all i know.but i know few old people who know alot about the history of rajputs الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 13:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Answer to Wisesabre

Thank you for your compliment. I will hopefully register very soon. In answer to your question regarding the Rajput names you mention, I am not well acquainted with them which doesn't mean they aren't authentic. Some subcaste names develop out of many well known dynasties etc. For example Bhatti name has developed out of the Yadavs. The Ghakkar (from Ghakkar Shah) name has developed out of Kayani who was a descendant of Sassan ibn Bauman. Janjua came from King Janamejaya who belonged to the Pandavas (Pandu) who are essentially Kauravas (King Kuru) etc. Each new patriarch of a dynasty will have his own distinct identity over his own future descendants in the ways mentioned above. The Guhilot dynasty itself has many off shoots in this way e.g. Ranawat.

With regards to Bhattis, I know that they are Rajputs although some have alleged Jatt status. They are authentic Rajputs, but some of their fellow Bhatti clan members were believed to have been deposed to Jatt status and their estates seized. Some may have begun calling themselves Jatts as the Jatts united into a new prominent power in Punjab, so being local residents they changed titles with time. I know a few authentic Bhattis who are Rajput by blood (with family trees) but alledge Chaudhry status! Many Rajput families have done this such as Kokhars, Janjua and Sidhu (who are infact descendants of Rai Sidhu who was a Bhatti Rajput).

There are ofcourse imposters but the authentic members of a respective Rajput house will always be aware through some form of record keeping and family trees of where particular branches live etc. Imposters are usually small in number and easily recognisable by locals who are aware of their actual lineage as it's harder to alledge a new clan name in a town you have lived in for centuries.

Another interesting point worth noting here is that the Pakistani army implicitly and explicitly adopted a recruitment policy whereby they would only employ Rajputs as soldiers as they believed at the time that they wouldn't flee from the enemy due to their upbringing and values. Family trees were checked and authenticity was confirmed before being recruited. This unfortunately led to many worthwhile candidates of poorer backgrounds being declined simply due to their lineage. Eventually many candidates applied stating fake tribal identity to gain entry. Authenticity checks were ditched and these families who were victims of this circumstance eventually retained these names of Rajput clans to save face with their new colleagues and friends. This is widely known and did result in many imposters. But I dont feel the word imposter is right to use, it implies a malice. You must understand these people were poor people who had no choice but to use this method to feed their families through this career. It's a weakness on the authentic Rajputs part to look down on one who used their respective family name to help his family survive. But indeed this led to a small explosion if you will of doubtful origin Rajputs.

But with Kunwarji's point regarding why Pakistan having many Rajputs, he himself has mentioned that northern India was the realm of the Rajputs. Northern India eventually became Pakistan. The above made point regarding the 'imposter explosion' is very small in number and as mentioned they are known to be so. They also dont openly state this doubtful Rajput status for for being of found out.

My reply,

You have expressed your naievette in saying what a professor will know on this subject when a pundit has expressed.....

I will not argue on pundit's knowledge of varna system. He may be knowing something about it but he is talking of Kshatriya varn which encompasses many other casts including rajputs. That doesnot mean all other khstriyas including jatt, ahir and gujjars will become a rajput. These so called pundits even objected Akbars conversion in to rajput and now has become generous to your visits to temple. That is good sign. I am not against any religion and any cast. It does not matter if some one is muslim or hindu and if some one is baniya or rajput. It is Ok but to claim that some one is rajput because their ancestors were will have to be seen in the light of rajputi.

Rajput as I have written in previous section is the one who can not be forced to deter from his convictions. Rajputs were put to severe pressure during islamic conquest. Those who could withstand that pressures continued as a rajput those who succumbed did lose their status. Because those rajputs could not show rajputi courage against ovewhelming odds and could not sacrifice for their conviction and hence have lost their claim to be a rajput. One can try reclaiming that glory by arguing in favor of their lineage but that is just an argument. To become a rajput they will have show now greater courage and commitment to thier convictions during serious distress and overwhelming odds. If they could remain undaunted and could endure then they can think off claiming their heritage. Till then it will remain just a discussion and time pass.

Sincerely,

Dinesh K. Singh Naruka

Rajput: Re-stating the Problem Statement

At the risk of being labelled politically incorrect, and insensitive may I humbly suggest that Rajputs are not a Homogenous group in terms of a "race". In years to come, this disambiguation would no more be there because of Mitochondrial_DNA testing. (Already the research conducted by Indian scientists and Westerners is pointing the inconlusivness of one single ancestor theory.) The Rajputs are indeed a social group based on a somewhat common worldview about their past. However, there is plenty of literature on the formation of tribes, races, castes, etc. Some of it is in the Indian context. This could be helpful in understanding the identity question.

Secondly, the idea that non-Hindus can't be Rajputs is inherently flawed. Hinduism is a way of life, a combination of various religious beliefs, traditions and practices. It is not a monolith. Nor is it a formal religion. Thanks to the British, we know now of Hinduism as religon. Most of "Orientalism" was actually to gain control over the eastern wealth and resources.

May I request Shonan Talpade to be a little gentle while presenting his arguments, if he has any. His rejoinder to Omer Khan was quite inappropriate. The response entitled "Northern India" (above) is equally irresponsible.

M Gazdar --203.101.162.47 13:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to posters who claim turks/arabs/mughals/muslims were better warriors then rajputs and some comments on musalman rajputs.

  -Shivraj Singh 

                Battles between rajputs and muslims.

Muslims started attacking India within a few decades of the birth of islam. For a few hundred years they had no success. Bin Qasim was able to defeat Dahir in Sindh but was routed by Bappa Rawal. Qasim attacked chittore, which was ruled by Mori Rajputs, via Mathura. Bappa, of guhilote dynasty, was a commander in Mori army and so was Dahir's son. Bappa defeated and pursued Bin Qasim through Saurashtra and back to Sindh. After this resounding defeat of the caliphate at the hands of Bappa, for next few hundered years there were no more incursions into India. (note muslim historians rarely recorded the defeats of there kings)

Then Mahmud started his raids and was succesful in looting Somnath.

Ghori attacked many times.First time he was routed in present day Gujarat by Rajputs. After this defeat he never entered India thru Gujarat. In first battle of Taraori (tarain is misspelledword) Prithviraj chauhan captured Ghori and Ghori begged for his life. Prithviraj allowed him to go despite his generals asking him not to do so.Following year Ghori came again. Prithviraj advanced with his army and sent a letter to Ghori. In this letter ghori was asked to return as he had been beaten last year and was spared his life. Ghori replied that he was in India on the orders of his brother and he can only retreat after he gets a word from his brother. This letter was sent in the evening and Ghori moved his camp back a few kilometers. On receiving this letter and seing Ghori move his camp back Prithviraj assumed that Ghori is not interested in fighting. Ghori also knew that Rajputs did not fight in the night and only started fighting after sun had come up. He attacked in the early morning hours when Prithviraj and his army were sleeping and was able to win this war. So much for the bravery of Turks/Arabs etc.

Later Alla-ud-din Khilji usurped delhi from his relative. Khilji wanted to win Chittor because sisodiyas of chittor never accepted the rule of Islam. Another reason was Rani Padmini. He laid a siege but Chittor would not fall. Then he requested Rana Ratan Singh, husband of Rani Padmini, that if he is allowed a glimpse of Rani he would leave. By this time the situation inside the fort was getting bad. Rana discussed this with his advisers and they agreed that they can show Padmini's face in a mirror to the sultan. The meeting took place and afterwards out of courtesy when Rana was walking Khliji out of the palace, khilji's men captured Rana Ratan Singh. Khilji sent a mesg to the fort that Rana can be spared by exchanging Rani Padmini. Padmini discussed this with Gorah, her maternal uncle, who was a chauhan rajput. Gora told her not to worry and that he would go and bring back Rana Ratan Singh and Sultan is not brave enough to stop him. Padmini's nephew Badal who was just sixteen also assured her. A mesg was sent from the fort to Khlji that Padmini would come with 700 of her servants in "palanquins" (palki in hindi) and that no muslim soldier should peek inside the palki to outrage the modesty of the women. Letter also said that before Padmini meets khilji she would like to talk to Rana. khilji agreed. All the palki's had the best rajput warriors with two swords each. When Padmini's palki, which was occupied by Gora, reached Rana's tent he asked Rana to mount the horse and go back to the fort. Then Gora gave a signal and every rajput came out of the palki and attacked the muslims who were cut to pieces. Gora reached Khilji's tent and was about to kill the sultan when khilji moved his concubine infront of him. Gora, being a rajput could not kill an innocent women and these few seconds were enough for khliji's guards to kill Gora from behind.

Prithviraj's descendant Hammir deo chauhan ruled ranthambore. Jalore was ruled by another branch of Chauhans, the Songaras. During Khilji's time Somnath temple was attacked again and ulugh khan, the mongol general, had broken the shiv linga and was carrying it back to delhi. Kanhad Dev, ruler of Jalore, attacked Ulugh Khan, defeated him and took the shiv ling from Ulugh's army and reinstated the broken pieces in a few temples around jalore. One of ulugh's general was a neo-muslim and and he had helped Kanhad deo. This general later went and stayed with Hammir deo in ranthambore. Khilji wanted him dead and asked Hammir to hand him over. Hammir replied that he knows how to draw his sword and anyone who has taken shelter in his fort would not be turned over. Khliji attacked ranthambore but his armies were defeated. He finally came himself and and somehow managed to bribe two generals in Hammir's army and consequently Ranthambore fell.

Later Rana Kumbha repeatedly defeated sultans of Malwa and Gujarat and built 32 forts in rajasthan. Even the combined armies of sultans of Malwa and Gujarat could not beat Kumbha.

In his line was Rana Sangram Singh or Sanga. Sanga defeated Ibrahim Lodi in 1519. Lodi was defeated by Babur later. Now Babur was having sleepless nights because of Sanga. Babur sent about 1500 choice cavalry to attack Sanga. These were butchered by Sanga's rajputs. Babur wanted to discuss peace terms. For discussions Sanga sent his general Silhadi (Shiladitya). Babur won this general by promising him independent kingdom. Silhadi came back and reported that babur does not want peace and he wants to fight. Fight started and Babur's army was being knocked out of the field and victory was certain for Sanga. At this juncture Silhadi and his army just left the field and this tilted the war in favor of Babur and he won.

Humayun, Babur's son was beaten by Sher Shah Suri, a pathan. Humayun was forced to leave India and Sher Shah became ruler of delhi. Sisodiya's and Mewar were not able to recover from Sanga's treacherous defeat fully yet. In rajasthan Rathores were becoming very powerful. Rao Maldeo, rathore king, had extended his territory to within a couple of hundred kilometers of delhi. Sher Shah attacked Maldeo. Maldeo came with a force of 40 thousand and sher shah had 60 thousand. In the evening Shershah sent forged letters to Maldeo's camp. In these letters it was stated that few generals from Maldeo's army were buying arms from SherShah's army. This caused great consternation in Maldeo who thought there is treachery and that some of his generals had crossed over to Sher Shah. Maldeo left with 20 thousand men. In reality there was no treachery. Later when Maldev's generals, Kumpa and Jaita found out what happened they did not loose cool and decided they would not leave the field even though they just had 20 thousand men and had to face 60 thousand pathans of sher shah. Finally battle of sammel was fought and sher shah was shocked by what he saw. SherShah's top generals lost there lives and his army suffered heavy losses. After this Sher Shah commented that "for a few grains of Bajra he had almost lost the entire kingdom of India". (Bajra is a crop that grows in marwar region of rajasthan). It is a moot point now but had Maldeo not retreated because of the fake letter Rathores/Rajputs would have defeated SherShah.

Humayun's son Akbar was born in the palace of a Hindu king who had given Humayun shelter when he was being pursued by SherShah. Akbar realized that he can never subdue Rajputs and become sole ruler of India. He decided to pursue diplomacy and was able to convince the rajput rulers of Amber (present day Jaipur) about a matrimonial alliance. King of Amber agreed and Jodha Bai became Akbar's queen and mother of Salim/Jahangir. Soon other Rajput kingdoms in rajasthan also gave there daughters to Akbar. This was the darkest period in the history of Rajputs.

Only two kings remained against this. The sisodiyas of Mewar and Hadas of Ranthambore. Hadas are chauhans. Finally Man Singh of Amber and Akbar went and met Surjan Hada that he should become friends with Akbar and Surjan some how agreed but one of his conditions of friendship was that no daughter of Hadas would ever be asked to marry mughals and Akbar agreed. So there remained just the house of Mewar the sole bearer of Rajput pride in the face of immense opposition from Mughals as well as other rajputs who had sold there souls essentially to mughals by giving there daughters.

Maharana Pratap the sisodiya ruler of Mewar passed a law in his state that none of his followers will intermarry with other rajputs of rajasthan who have given there daughters to Muslims. This lwas was followed completely by his loyal band of rajputs which included Rathores/Chauhans/Sisodiyas/Parihars/Tomars/Jhala. Maharana Pratap never accepted Akbar as king of India and all his life kept fighting Akbar. Pratap's son, Amar Singh, fought 17 wars with mughals but he finally accepted themas rulers. At this time a large chunk of Maharana Pratap's band of loyal Rajputs became disillusioned by the surrender and left Rajasthan. This group includes Rathores/Deora Chauhans/Parihaars/Tomars/Jhala. They are called "Rors" and are settled mostly in Haryana and some in UP. Till today they do not intermarry with other rajputs but "gotra permitting" with other rors only.

Akbar was very unhappy with Maharana Pratap and he first tried diplomacy to win over Maharana but nothing worked. Pratap just said he has no intention to fight with Akbar but he cannot bow down to Akbar and accept him as the ruler.

Finally Akbar attacked Maharana at haldighati. Akbar's general was Man Singh Kacchwaha of Amber and had 40 thousand men. Maharana had about 8 thousand men and some bhil warriors. During the first attack Maharana's army routed the mughals and mughals ran for there life. Maharana decided to kill Man Singh. Maharana's horse chetak put his front feet on the trunk of the elephant that Man Singh was riding and Maharana threw his lance. Man Singh ducked and the elephant driver was killed. Man Singh was lucky to escape. Finally the numerical superiority was too much and the battle ended in a stalemate. When mughal army entered the nearyby town they were so mortified that Maharana would attack them again that no one would venture out of the camp for months. They ran out of food and conditions were just miserable in the mughal camp. Finally help arrived many months later. Akbar was very unhappy with his generals and his army and he refused to see his generals for months.

Akbar kept sending expedition after expedition against Maharana Pratap but never succeded. He lost lot of money and men in trying to defeat Maharana Pratap. For 30 years Pratap remained ahead of Akbar and in last ten years of his life was able to free most of his kingdom. The only fort Pratap could not recover was Chittor and that saddened him a lot. His son, Amar Singh, won that fort after Pratap's death.

It is said that somebody told Akbar that Pratap wants to accept Akbar as the king. Akbar was very happy to hear this. One of Akbar's general was Prthviraj Rathore who was a very good poet. He told Akbar this is a lie (incidentally Prithviraj's mother and Pratap's mother were real sisters). Prithviraj wrote this letter to Pratap:

"The hopes of the Hindu rest on the Hindu yet the Rana forsakes them. But for Pratap, all would be placed on the same level by Akbar; for our chiefs have lost their valour and our females their honour. Akbar is the broker in the market of our race; he has purchased all but the son of Udai (Singh II of Mewar); he is beyond his price. What true Rajput would part with honour for nine days (nauroza); yet how many have bartered it away? Will Chittor come to this market ...? Though Patta (an affectionate name for Pratap Singh) has squandered away wealth (on warfare), yet he has preserved this treasure. Despair has driven man to this market, to witness their dishonour: from such infamy the descendant of Hamir (Hamir Singh) alone has been preserved. The world asks, from where does the concealed aid of Pratap emanate? None but the soul of manliness and his sword .. The broker in the market of men (Akbar) will one day be surpassed; he cannot live forever. Then will our race come to Pratap, for the seed of the Rajput to sow in our desolate lands. To him all look for its preservation, that its purity may again become resplendent. It is as much impossible for me to believe that Pratap has called Akbar his emperor as to see the sun rising in the west. Tell me where do I stand? Shall I use my sword on my neck or shall I continue my proud bearing? "

Pratap replied to him:

"By my god Eklinga, Pratap would call the emperor Turk alone and the sun would rise in the east. You may continue your proud bearing as long as Pratap's sword dangles on the mughal head. Pratap would be guilty of Sanga's blood, if he was to tolerate Akbar. you would have the better of it, no doubt Prithviraj, in this wordy quarrel."

Prithviraj was overjoyed on getting this letter.

After Akbar in his line, few generations later, came Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb did not like Jaswant Singh, ruler of Marwar. When Jaswant Singh Rathore died he had no son and this gave Aurang a chance to appoint a muslim as the ruler of marwar. This upset rathore rajputs a lot. Two of Jaswant Singh's queens were in the family way when Jaswant Singh died. One queen gave birth to Ajit Singh. After his birth, Rathore generals, chief among them was DurgaDas Rathore, went to Delhi along with the queens and Ajit Singh, who was an infant, and asked Aurnagzeb that the crown of marwar should be given to Ajit Singh. Aurangzeb was a very cunning and immoral fellow and he had no intention of handing over the throne of marwar. He wanted to kill them all. Durgadas sensed this and they smuggled Ajit Singh out of Delhi to the outskirts of the city. When Mughal army came to capture them in delhi DurgaDas and his men attacked the mughals and started riding out of delhi. Raghunandan Bhati and others soaked the streets of Delhi in crimson by flowing the blood of mughal pursuers. There were about three hundred rajputs with Durgadas and there were thousands of pursuing mughals. Every so often 15 - 20 rajputs would fall behind attack the mughal pursuers and in the process get themselves killed but it allowed the forward party to create some distance between Ajit and the mughals. This continued till the evening by which time mughals had given up and Durgadas was left with just seven men out of three hundred he started with and reached Jaipur along with Ajit Singh.

Thereby started the 30 year rajput rebellion against Aurangzeb. Mewar and Marwar forces combined together and almost killed Aurangzeb when he was trapped in the mountains of rajasthan but the Mewar king out of magnanimity allowed aurangzeb to escape.

All the trade routes were plundered by rajputs and they started looting various treasuries of rajasthan and gujarat. To crush them Aurang sent many expeditions but no success. These expeditions and drying up of revenue from trade routes running thru rajasthan had severe effect on his resources.

Finally on his deathbed Aurang complained that his life had been a complete failure. He was the sole reason for Mughal empire's crumbling. His war campaigns had practically left the treasury dry for his progeny.

A point to note here is that lot of Muslims and some hindu historians like Romila Thapar think that Islam/Muslims did not do conversion of Hindus by sword. The argument they give is that there are so many hindus still today in India. This is completely wrong because most muslim rulers in India tried to convert as many as they could but it was the strength of rajput sword that kept hinduism alive in India. If there were no rajputs in India then India would be just like Iraq/Iran/Turkey/ Pakistan in terms of religion of the population.

       Muslim Rajputs in India
  

There are rajput muslims in India. They are called "ranghars". These people are proud of there lineage and do not intermarry with other muslims but only marry with other "ranghars". They come to rajput villages to celebrate diwali/dusshera and the village elders give them "hukka" a sign of respect.

All castes in India have muslims in them. Wether it is rajputs/jats/gurjars/ baniyas/brahmins. This is due to conversions which were mostly forcible after a battle was lost and sometimes tactical i.e some army commanders changed religous alegiance for a life of comfort in the imperial court. e.g Nahur Khan who was a rathore (see James Tod's book). In Tod's book there is mention of bhattis converting to Islam and there are more examples besides these.

The question is that if a rajput who converted to islam for whatever reason, but still maintains his unique identity, does not intermarry with other muslims, then it is OK for him to proclaim that he is musalman rajput.

To Shivraj Singh ji-

I must stress that I don't agree with the notion that Turks etc. are better fighters than Rajputs. I stated in the above post that this was a 'simple' view by simple folk who have a basic view of the huge developments that took place in India historically during their battles and wars. The details you have stated above are interesting and I am grateful for that, but I didnt state that this was my view. I apologise if it appears so. I profoundly believe that all wars and battles are a cycle which must turn and the outcome has a bigger picture beyond our understanding, predetermined by the Almighty. Many warriors of honour have won and many have lost from all sides throughout history as we are all aware. I can confirm I know many Muslim Rajputs who do not hand their daughters out to non Muslim Rajputs. Although some do this because of class clash, the majority mainly do this due to the particular upbringing that they have and the domestic atmosphere that exists there. To being in someone who is not from such an environment would certainly breed problems, especially in our general Indian culture (which can be unforgiving should the marriage go wrong..) I would like to state that it is a common view of a lot of our counterparts in India that the masses were force converted. This may have been the case under some very tyrannical rulers, but it doesn't obliviate the fact that Islam won over many converts from all walks of life from Shudras to Rajputs and Brahmins. To state the force conversion in only a 'forced' light is not very neutral and fair. Many of such mentioned forced converts had the opportunity to revert, why didnt they? If Islam was so unfair and militant then why did they accept it and later generations become staunch supporters of it? Regardless of faith, it is not the Religion which is often the bad element, it is some poor followers of it. It is a well known fact that a Janjua Sardaar, Raja Ajmal Dev Shahi of Rajghar had accepted Islam without duress or force and was infact a rebel against the foreign Ghorid armies. However, none of his sons were Muslims? His grandsons later accepted Islam. Now if one follows the logic of forced conversions equalled all families were from then on converts, this proves it wrong. He never forced his family to adopt Islam (as I have mentioned Islam clearly states "There is no compulsion in Faith"- true rulers ashered to this, some poor ones obviously didnt) but not all Rajputs were forced and you must understand this. To state that the rest of the Hindu population would have become so had not the Rajputs stood in their way cannot account for the millions who did convert from choice. This is a talk page on Rajputs and it would be better if it stays on this topic as opposed to becoming a 'Islam in India' talk.