Talk:Shivaji

Shivaji's Shudra status

I'm running across quite a few mentions of Shivaji having been of a Shudra family, who was then later recognised as Kshatriya by Brahmins in order to legitimise his coronation. Is there any legitimate reason to leave out this information, other than POV? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Pandit Gaga Bhatt presented a genealogy declaring that Shivaji's ancestors were Kshatriyas descended from the solar line of the Rajput Ranas of Mewar.

Ref here- . ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly makes Pandit Gaga Bhatt a reliable source for this? Does Sardesai actually critique him? I ask because Sardesai's book gets zero hits for citations on GScholar, despite being around for 10 years. While I recognise that is not the only indicator, it is often persuasive. Similarly, Genesis Publishing Pvt do not appear to be a recognised source for quality books.

NB: I have not looked at any sources other than the one cited above. I therefore have no opinion on the matter at all, other than to query the quality of this particular source. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the book written by Pandit Ganga Bhatt? No. To say that the Pandit Ganga Bhatt as a source is incorrect.

About the content, lets not judge content. The source is reliable. Please mention how Genesis Publishing didn't turn up as a reliable publisher for you. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that the book was written by PGB. I asked did the author (Sardesai) critique him for his reliability. Genesis Publishing Pvt scores beggar all: they are not a well-known publisher internationally, not a university press and not even seemingly much used on Wikipedia as a source. So, we have a pretty much unknown author published by a pretty much unknown press - what's to like? For all we know, they may be a vanity publisher. - Sitush (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

More on Cosmo Publications for uninformed. Perhaps this will toss away all loose talk of "a vanity publisher"? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is doubting that Brahmin leaders wrote a genealogy for Shivaji, what we are discussing is whether there is academic debate as to the validity of this genealogy. This is not some fringe theory, search gBooks for "shivaji kshatriya" and you'll note that a large number of serious books (including O'Hanlon) bring up the issue of how even at the time his Kshatriya claims were contested, and even today people debate his actual origin. What is the problem with mentioning in the article that these issues are not necessarily clear-cut, and mentioning the main theories? MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is how are editors judging who should debate the genealogy once it is written. In any case, as already mentioned many times, caste is not ironclad for ironclad anthropological classifications, unlike race that can not be changed by religion. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you kicked off that debate by giving my initial question an answer that implied "no, he's Kshatriya". My question wasn't "did anyone ever say he was Kshatriya", my question was "is there some reason we're not including the scholarly discussion of his possible (likely) Shudra origins?" MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As I understand, the varna understanding even at this point of time is not ironclad. I am not sure how clear another discussion on an an event that was about 450 years ago would be, for what is clear is that his Sisodia lineage was accepted, etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not have to be ironclad. As said earlier, I have not actually checked up on anything in this area. but if there is a reasonable academic debate then we need to reflect it. Just as at Kurmi we reflect the claims to kshatriya status that have been made. I am sure that you are aware there is no such thing as "absolute truth", so provided that the issue MV refers to is not a fringe theory etc, it should be covered. If there are a lot of source, as MV suggests, then it definitely needs something saying about it. - Sitush (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As on Kurmi page, the page should not look like more on debates & misunderstandings of editors. It would look poor reflection of enforcing Wikipedia standards and an attempt to add smear, at the same time undermining the stated substance of Kashtriya lineage/admission. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Take that to the Kurmi page. You really are not learning a thing about how this project works, are you? How many more times must people ask you not to spread this junk across umpteen different pages. There is a place for it and the procedures for what to do if you cannot resolve at that place have been explained to you on several occasions. So, please stop introducing points that are irrelevant to what ever page it is you happen to be editing at the time. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Retracted: a gross misunderstanding on my part, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of superb modern sources for Shivaji's original Shudra status. In fact, Shivaji is the paradigmatic case of such transformation in Susan Bayly's work. I will post the references here later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions that 'Initially, when Shivaji decided to formally ascend the throne, the local Brahmins refused to crown him because he had no proof of his Kshatriya Rajput ancestry. Subsequently, Pandit Gaga Bhatt presented a genealogy declaring that Shivaji's ancestors were Kshatriyas descended from the solar line of the Rajput Ranas of Mewar.[20]'. I think it should be left at that. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any interest in this article, but since I have already posted the references on the India project page, I'm providing the links here, in case someone is interested:

• link1
• six more links (see bottom of link). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting edit there! ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between not being able to prove one's status and changing one's status. Since you now appear to be coming round to MV's point, the article needs to reflect it. To do otherwise is (yet again) censorship. You are not learning, are you? - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Since we are discussing about censorship, detail on Coronation of Shivaji would also be good I suppose. In any case I am glad that 'changing status' is now finding a regular mention in otherwise unchanging positions on varna status. That varna system is quite fluid is somehow sinking in is a good indicator. You can blame whoever you want to, but I am glad that systemic biases are getting cleared. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't "break your arm patting yourself on the back"; nobody has been arguing that varna is a constant, we've been arguing that varna is a complex issue that needs to be qualified and contextualised. Again, if you look at my work (Kayastha for example, which I did an almost total rewrite on) I've done entire paragraphs about varna flexibilities and controversies. I am impressed at the cognitive dissonance involved in trying to block information, and when that becomes unfeasible congratulating others for being open-minded. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please check the book by noted historian Jadunath Sarkar on how the brahmins of the day regarded Shivaji as a Shudra and how he in turn got the learned Gaga bhatt to create a Kshtriya lineage for him in order to get crowned. The book also talks about the greediness of the brahmins of the day.[1],page 242Jonathansammy (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How did sarkar knew that brahmins of his day considered shivaji a shudra what are his sources further the poetry Jayaram by Maharastrian Brahmin Champu on Shahji states he and maloji(grandfather) are sisodia rana. Sarkar is speculating and his views dont forms source how did he knew how much money was paid infact many of sarkar writings are invented he has described wars as if he witnessed the wars these are creative writings and not authenitc.115.241.246.57 (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say all this? Please quote passages. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

TT2011 , The gbook is searchable. Please check page 240-242. When the local brahmins denied his Kshatriya claim, Shivaji in turn asked all his brahmin administrators to resign and get back to their traditional pursuit of puja and surviving on "bhikshuki". The book or certainly this section is very entertaining.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

how jadunath sarkar knew this, what are his sources jaduath sarkar cannot be a source.115.242.19.234 (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The pages of Jadunath Sarkar can be referred on Archive.org here. Please stop using Googlebooks for references where they don't even bother to put up a free copy of a book in the public domain. AshLin (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

MV said that his kshatriya origin was contested even at that time sorry MV but thats a lie and if not plz furnish the sources of that era and not of modern historians . I dont believe in speculating anything i need evidence thats all, further the thing that Kshatriya origin was created just for his coronation is false the book written on Shahji by Champu was 20 years before shivaji coronation similarly shahji letter to adil shah was of very earlier date than shivaji coronation, hence shivaji created fake demand of kshatriya is false and is propogated by few historians with vested interest . MV can you give the source which proves that his origin was contested in that era i guess thats written by modern historians till 20th century nobody contested this only after 20th century many origins of shivaji pop-up to take the claim of freeing india from muslims.115.242.19.234 (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Shivaji's Rajput ancestry

From James Mill , ( 1817 ), THE HISTORY OF BRITISH INDIA. BY JAMES MILL, ESQ. , London , Baldwin, Cradock and Joy, Paternoster Row , p. 606

"Malojee was the son of Bauga Bonsla, a son of the Rana of Odipoor, by a woman of an inferior caste. The degradation of Bauga Bonsla, from the impurity and baseness of his birth, drove him to seek, among strangers, that respect which he was denied at home. He served during a part of his life a Rajah, possessing a Zemindaree in the province of Candesh; and afterwards purchased for himself a Zemindaree in the neighbourhood of Poonah, where he resided till his death. His son Malojee entered the service of a Mah- ratta chief, in which he acquired so much distinction as to obtain the daughter of his master in marriage for his son. This son was Shajee, and Sevagee was the fruit of the marriage. But Shajee, having quarrelled with his father-in-law, re- paired to the King of Beejapore, and received an establishment in Carnatic. He here joined the Polygar of Mudkul in a war upon the Rajah of Tanjore; and having defeated the Rajah, the victors quarrelled about the division of the territory. Shajee defeated the Polygar, took possession of both Mudkul and Tanjore; and, having married another wife, by whom he had a son named Ekojee, he left him and his posterity Rajahs of Tanjore, till they sunk into dependants of the East India Company.*"Jonathansammy (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Khafi khan has reportedly wriiten that bhonsle are illegitimate heirs of rana of udeipur with inferior women , further i would like to attract everyone attention towards this, according to hindu rituals caste of mother is caste of child in ancient times best example the only shudra empire of india Nand empire was founded by Mahapadma Nand who was son of Mahanandi(kshatriya) with shudra wife shunanda. Objecting to rise of Mahapadma his step brothers objected on which he killed all the kshatriya so that no one can claim the throne. Now in modern world all rituals changed now caste comes from father as well as religion so even if Shivaji grandfather or ancestors were son of rajput father and shudra mother will we consider them as rajput or shudra , one thing which is undisputable is that by some way or other shivaji family is connected with rajputs reason have a look at the grammer.

Shiva ji bhonsle or shiva sinh bhonsle, shah ji bhonsle or shah sinh bhonsle , similarly "JI" is not attached for respect but is common and it is probable it came from SINH(pronounced sih) which may have corrupted into "JI" .Apart from this the mudhol state persian sanads prove the rajput lineage of shivaji and his ancestors further to say only shivaji is rajput is wrong many maratha generals traced their lineage to rajputs. The mohammedan conquest may have forced migration from north to central india. GH Ojha is another great historian of repute who have agreed on rajput origin but assigned his illegitimate tag. The most common outcome is that it is possible shivaji ancestors are of mixed birth father from rajput side and a shudra mother because higher caste men were allowed to marry lower caste women and their are many examples of this.115.241.246.57 (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

yes many ancient scholars have commented on Shivaji origin and they all refer to them as Rajputs, the letter of Shahji to Sultan Adil Shah states he is sisodia rajput. This is disgusting to doubt people like Shivaji and Shahji but these modern claims by historians in 20th century are disgusting and sadening , can a man of Shivaji repute lie about his origin i dont think so, maybe he was of mixed birth but still he was rajput . Further the alternate origins are not shudra but "YADAVA", "hoysala" and "lingayat" shudra origin is promoted only by dalit right activists and supporter and till any evidence is furnished i am against mentioning this because this will make propaganda and is not right we need atleast some evidence Jadunath sarkar too didnt call shivaji a shudra he contested his pure rajput claim but never said him a shudra and further shudra which "CASTE"!!!! this is important question to which caste in shudra community he belongs to so i think it will be just propaganda and not fact. Atleast one primary source should point towards that but without a single piece of primary source it will act as propaganda and not a fact backed by evidence. Will this not be injustice towards the rajput origin because It has been supported by both primary sources and renowned historians(i will not nit pick like qwyrian).115.240.64.250 (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would the Dalit promote the Shudra claim ? According to the Varna theory they are not even part of the four varnas. At best they can be regarded as "Ati-shudra". Shivaji and Shahaji were great men. To me, whether they were half Rajput or quarter Rajput does not reduce my respect for them. By the way, the reference I gave earlier was from 1817. What I would be interested in is whether the Sisodia ever acknowledged the Bhosale family as one of their own. Also some brahmins may even challenge the claims of Rajputs to be Kshatriya. To them , after Parshuram's genocide of Kshatriyas, only two varnas were left, brahmin and Shudra !Jonathansammy (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah and who defeated Mr Parshuram the great warrior and Hindu most beloved God Lord Sree Ram Chandra he is ancestors of all the "SURYAVANSHI KSHATRIYA" their are overall 24 kshatriya groups who are considered Suryavanshi Kshatriya. The fact that parshuram wanted to establish brahmins on the top of varna system which was objected by kshatriya on which he killed all kshatriya but Lord vishnu then took the avatar of LORD RAM and handed mr parshuram(a brahmin) a shameful defeat infact even Lakshman(another kshatriya) would have rocked mr parshuram.

I have to say that even though i am an upper caste(not brahmin but kshatriya) but i hate brahmins the most because they have always tried to pull kshatriya down infact they have tried to dominate Hinduism and wanted to replace hinduism with brahminism and that angers me. They have done the same with Chandragupta morya all the hindu texts(purana and ved) descirbe chandragupta as kshatriya of solar dynasty but the brahmin accounts such as mudrarakshahsa a text which is written 800 years after chandragupta call him a nanda son from a sudra women. Further just think this is Jadunath sarkar have more values and integrity than Shivaji i dont think so even if jadunath sarkar die and born 1000 times he will not have same integrity and values therefore i have never doubted shivahji he was a rajput and will always remain one , the claims which started around 20th century cannot be given importance if shivahji has said he is rajput then that is final.

Yes Sisodia did not accept shivahji as rajput because shivaji is not a pure rajput infact his mother is yadava chieftain daughter , another reason that jai singh was afraid that if he accepts him as sisodia rajput then other rajputs will support shivahji over him. But jai singh has infact written a letter in which he has accepted that shivaji is rajput and he has mentioned that both of them are brothers because they are from same dynasty you can search the jai singh letter to shivaji on gbooks or on various sites.115.242.65.202 (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(folks, please remember to indent your replies using a colon so they don't all run together)

115.242.65.202, you need to take a step back and look at this objectively. Phrases like "shivahji has said he is rajput then that is final" are not conducive to academic discussion. Clearly, the fact that we're even having this heated argument shows that there are several interpretations of the history, and if there are multiple (mainstream, non-fringe) views, they should be portrayed in the article. Nobody should be trying to add "Shivaji was XYZ and this is final", but rather "there is debate as to Shivaji's affiliations, with arguments such as X, Y, and Z" with proper footnotes." If you want to edit on a topic, you must be able to set aside your strong emotional ties to it, or else direct your editing attentions to other topics on which you can be more neutral and objective. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

115.242.65.202 (talk),

There is a famous saying by Dr. Martin Luther King and I quote, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Similarly we should judge Shivaji Maharaj by his deeds and character rather than whether he was Rajput or not. You, Sir, seem to be too fixated on the Rajput origins and hate for brahmins as well as the Dalits. Yes, we have thousands of castes and tribes in India. We should all be proud of our own individual heritage, however, that should not be at the expense of hate for other groups. Shivaji Maharaj really was a good example of someone who could count amongst his supporters people from all backgrounds including brahmin and even muslims. Jonathansammy (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

i will accept not only X,Y AND Z theories about Shivaji but A-Z theories till they are supported by evidence and evidence means -

1-Primary source or text

2-Noted historians agreement.

Rajput origin had both and on the other hand the any other origin of Shivaji is not backed by any primary source of evidence even Jadunath sarkar in his book was interested in rejecting Shivaji origin rather than proving his alternate origin therefore those propaganda dont stand and their is big big loopholes in sarkar many theories he was an expert on Mughal infact from his first to last subject he only wrote about mughals for instant fame and recognition but his knowledge of other subjects are under heavy cloud. 122.161.15.28 (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Folks, please indent your responses by putting one more ":" next to your paragraphs than the previous person used, so your reply will be one step further right. If you're getting too far right, type {{deindend}} and start over again at the left. Otherwise this is all too hard to read. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think i found some material in which Rana of Udeipur has accepted that bhonsle are descendants of sisodiya apart from that chavan and more are also called rajputs one of them is chauhan and other is mori rajput. http://www.archive.org/stream/shivajithegreatv030775mbp/shivajithegreatv030775mbp_djvu.txt

The letter in the possession of satara royal house from udepur shows that the maharan of mewar(udeipur) has written that- This result of the enquiry is to be had in the two letters published in the Sidhanta Vijaya by Mr. Dongre. There is a letter from the Maharana of Udepur and another from the Royal Priest Amreshwar of Udepur to Maharaj Shri Pratapsinha of Satara. Therein it is said that " you are our near kindred. No difference regarding matters of that and this place is to be kept in mind. Originally we are one." And this is not new even Jai singh has referred to shivaji as his brother because both belong to same dynasty and the pattern which i have founded is that Non-rajput origin books start coming only in 20th century and that raises question mark , are those people of lower caste because at that time in india their was lower caste movement for right and respect and they started claiming shivaji for self respect.

And i guess the then head of satara royal house has himself showed the letter it proves to many extent that they are rajputs otherwise no one will write that letter. Further the great Historian Gaurishankar Ojha too has confirmed from the sources that the last member who leave mewar Dilip singh was the one who was the founder of this bhonsle branch.122.161.105.221 (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Here people dont understand the meaning of historians and their field of research for example Jadunath sarkar is never known for any of his other subjects apart from Mughals means he has very less knowledge about both rajputs and marathas further he has not written any detailed report as to why shivahji is not rajput, similarly Their is no historian who is as eminent as Gaurishankar ojha in rajasthan history(along with hc raychoudhuri) , people need to understand this i have seen many commnets( from non-history students) like jadunath sarkar greatest indian historian i can only laugh greatest indian historian title can be inferred to three historians who cover many periods and not only mughal and they are RG Bhandarkar, RC Majumdar and Damodar Koshambi apart from these 3 legends in Indian History no other historian can be termed as greatest indian historian or doyen of indian historian. Only those who dont know much about history as subject can say it that" Jadunath Sarkar is greatest indian historian " So come out of that mentality and refer to works by historian for which they are known , tomorrow someone will call a economics field historian such as rc dutt as the doyen of indian historian , many historians have specialized field and we should refer to them by that.122.161.105.221 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

vandal acts by new user

The vandalism seems to have crossed all boundaries the new user deleted all the relevant material with all the sources i copied 2 of the sources but if other know about the sources plz restore it , as many points sources are not known thnx to the blanket editing by the new user, and where are mods .Shail kalp (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

the evidence cited by jadunath sarkar in shivaji and his times was flawed, the book was released in 1917(not sure though) in 1939AD jadunath sarkar took a U-TURN and concluded that Shivaji was a rajput , he called the genealogy of bhonsle by dr balkrishna(shivaji the great, volume -1, 1936) as a fairly correct one go and read the later books of sir jadunath sarkar. In 1924 persian sanads were released by mudhol state which tore apart sarkar claim then the first historian to confirm shivaji rajput lineage was great marathi historian gs sardesai and then dr balkrishna give the whole family tree which was termed fairly correct by sarkar in 1939 work. http://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=dr+balkrishna+bhonsle+geneology+correct&btnG=#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=Mudhol+firmans+%26+constructed+what+appears+to+be+a+correct+genealogy+of+the+Bhosles+from+the&pbx=1&oq=Mudhol+firmans+%26+constructed+what+appears+to+be+a+correct+genealogy+of+the+Bhosles+from+the&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=8357l8357l5l8623l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=b362390a3dbaaa3b&biw=1366&bih=677. This work of jadunath sarkar was in 1939 and dr balkrishna has proven with much extent that bhonsle and ghorpade are both rajputs. Stop refering to the old 1917 work of jadunath sarkar the later work in which he retracted his sentence and agreed with shivaji rajput lineage.115.242.127.25 (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

At no point did Sir jadunath sarkar recognise the rajput origin of the Bhosales. Please stop spreading false and malicious articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushanbush82 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

we have seen your credentials bhushan , second thing he has already accepted shivaji rajput origin, infact the work you are citing is 1919 work-shivaji and his times and the work on jadunath sarkar and the letters and works not published were released in 56 by another historian go and read the above mentioned work , the persian sanads released in 1924 tore apart jadunath sarkar claimed though it was his greatness that he after that accepted the shivaji rajput claim, plz refer to the links provided by me, the 1936 work by dr balkrishan is a classic he has done giant research with all the possible sources and gave a genealogy which is widely accepted now and the bhonsle and ghorpade both are descendant of same sisodia so your ranting will not change the fact.115.242.13.119 (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Contesting the half Rajput descent of Shahji

I see a lot of unverified theories being portrayed here as facts, infact many links or references provided by the claimants themselves are not true. When there are contesting claims and unreliable sources , you cannot portray one point of view.

As per " Raja Shivchatrapati" - Balasaheb Purandare , Shreeman Yogi - Ranjeet Desai ( Shivaji The great - Mr.V.D.Katamble ) , .Shahaji decends from the Marathas of Ellora/ Satara.

Lets challenge the Rajput theory line by line

1] Claim - Shivaji's grandfather Maloji Bhonsle claimed descent from the Sisodia clan of Rajputs ......Challenge - When and where did Maloji Claim this? Where is that letter and who has verified the authenticity of this claim ? You can't just attribute some authors or your wown fancy.

2] Claim - Bhushan the Hindi poet speaks of the Bhosales being Rajput - Challenge - There is no place where Mahakavi Bhushan Tripathi claims Rajput Origin, this is unverified .

3]Claim - Shivabharata of Paramananda mentions that Shivaji and Shahji are of the Ikshvaku lineage like the Sisodiyas ; Parnalaparvata Grahanakhyana states that Shivaji is a Sisodia;.. Challenge - These are unverified and infact mailicious theories. Lets just use our commonsense , if a poet / philosopher calls someone a Rajput / Tamil , does he became one , does his lineage change ????

4] Regarding Kaifi Khan , his visceral hatred for Raje Shivaji and the Marathas is well known ; his history is not neutral at all ; its infact very biased.

5]James Mill and James todds theory is contested and controvertial even then and even today. They are not part of standard accepted history . None of their History is taught in any school or university in India.

6] Sir Jadunath Sarkar is considered the most imminent historian on the subject of the Moghals and Marathas ; and he has always contested the half Rajput Claim . The fact is that during those Medieval times of 16/17 century and even later , when caste segregation was an integral part of India ; the Brahmins of Maharashtra refused to coronate Raje Shivaji ; Hence the Marathas got Pandit Gaga Bhatt of Varanasi and he presented a genealogy declaring that Shivaji's ancestors were Kshatriyas. The fact is the Bhosales come from the Maratha family of Satara and Ellora. and Jijabai comes from the Yadavas of Deogiri.

There is no other Historical record from any court documents of the Marathas or any claim made of any Maratha Sardar ( including the Bhosales)about being Rajput ; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhashbhosle55 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

you are wrong, poet jayaram of shahji bhonsle court and bhaskar of shivaji court both mentions bhonsle as sisodia rajputs. Yes khafi khan was critical thats why he attached the illegal rajput tag with shivahji to show him below others but he did not call him a shudra or something like that and if he was faking then why will he call him a sisodia they are among the 4 rajput house who opposed mughal till the very end have no relations with mughals no matrimonial relations always damaged mughals and why not kachwaha this rajput branch used to sell their daughters in the harem of mughals so why he did not call shivahji a kachwaha and why sisodia. Oh have you read mahakavi poetry on shivaji do you even understand it dr balkrishna has verified all these sources what are you thinking about dr balkrishna go and search dr balkrishna(shivaji the great) then you will know how his work is considered a classic on maratha history no historian has collected and studied that much sources to know the origin of maratha warriors. Second thing it is pretty certain that you have no evidence and is guranteed that you are working for your own caste glory have you ever read kavi bhushan work then plz remind me which style was used by kavi bhushan , dont try to fool others the dr balkrishna work is a greatly cited book without major fault. Jadunth sarkar also changed his version post dr balkrishna work115.242.13.119 (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, There is no historical evidence of any kind if Shivaji ever claimed to be of Rajput descent ; infact according to Dr Ranjeet Desai or Babasaheb Purandare Shivaji Claimed Hindvi Swarajya or Maratha Shahi ; I read in some earlier discussions about some claiming that Shaha-ji , where Ji can be linked to Singh ; If I may say , this is such stupid logic ; some one is talking about a letter from Shahaji ,who has seen that letter and what is the authenticity of this letter ? Does that ONE letter define the lineage of a clan ? . Many of these historians like Kaifi Khan , and many British historians called Shivaji a robber ; what is the veracity of claims by these baised historians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushanbush82 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

neither is jadunath sarkar most eminent maratha historian, the title remains with james grant duff and gs sardesai and second thing the source of jadunath sarkar you are quoting is of earlier date, shivaji and his times was a 1919 work , persian sanads were released in 1924, gs sardesai agrees with sisodia lineage of both shivaji,ghorpade -http://www.google.co.in/#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=+Bhim+Sinh's+descendants+thus+came+to+be+known+as+Ghorpades&pbx=1&oq=+Bhim+Sinh's+descendants+thus+came+to+be+known+as+Ghorpades&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=80395l80395l3l80682l1l2l0l0l0l0l0l0ll1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=42ee3e466722faa5&biw=1366&bih=677

and third thing after the 1936 work of dr balkrishna(shivaji the great volume 1-3) the genealogy he has given in his work was accepted by the so called great historian sir jadunath sarkar in his 1939 work---http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=g#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=Dr.+Balkrishna+of+Kolhapur+has+issued+his+first+vol.+of+%22Shivaji+the+Great%22+%E2%80%94+dealing+with+the+career+of+Shahji.+He+has+made+free+use+of+the+Mudhol+firmans+%26+constructed+what+appears+to+be+a+correct+genealogy+of+the+Bhosles+from+the&pbx=1&oq=Dr.+Balkrishna+of+Kolhapur+has+issued+his+first+vol.+of+%22Shivaji+the+Great%22+%E2%80%94+dealing+with+the+career+of+Shahji.+He+has+made+free+use+of+the+Mudhol+firmans+%26+constructed+what+appears+to+be+a+correct+genealogy+of+the+Bhosles+from+the&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=8207l8207l0l8481l1l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=42ee3e466722faa5&biw=1366&bih=677 further the so called jadunath sarkar contesting the rajput origin of shivaji falls flat because he has already retracted from his earlier stand. The book by dr balkrishna has been cited as reference on this site and the full book can be read on the archive.com(also included in this section plz search the reference section).thnx.115.242.13.119 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

dont be ignorant of all historians, gh ojha a great historian, gs sardesai another great historian, later on sarkar also retracted from his earlier stand, this means not a single noted historian doubts the rajput claim of shivaji. second thing neither of you respect shivaji or his family you both are same persons with different user name as can be seen , how many historians and sources will you term incorrect the fact is that bhonsle,ghorpade, chavan, salunke, more and many more maratha family are rajputs as can be seen from their names as well. And the jadunath sarkar opposition can be deleted because that was ealier work 1919(shivaji and his times) in which he claim shivaji is not rajput but later on retracted and agree with dr balkrishna genealogy of bhonsles and ghorpade.115.242.13.119 (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Let me rebuff you point by point but FIRST Lets get certain things straight here :

THIS IS CONSENSUS FORUM . NOT YOUR HOME BLOG PAGE , WHERE YOU CAN PUT CONTROVERTIAL QUOTES , OR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ACCEPTED AS STANDARD HISTORY AS FACTS .

As I said before read works by Balasaheb Purandare or Ranjeet Desai. The Bhosales come form the Maratha house of Satara/ Ellora.

Point one : Dont give me some unverfied quotes by some poets . In Dr. Shirish Despandes work on Shahaji Raje, there is no mention of any Rajput house nor did Shahji ever claim it.You can also use your commonsense that when a poet calls someone a Rajput his lineage does not change.This is no scientific evidence. In "Shivraj Bhushan" Mahakavi Bhushan compares Shivaji to Indra and Ram , does not mean he has become one .

Point two: Ragarding Kaifi Khan , the whole world knows his visceral Hatred and Biased History against the Marathas. How on earth can you quote his work on a public forum of consensus. We do not need Kaifi Khans certification on the Non- Shudra status on Shivaji . He was a Maratha , thats a proven fact. You seem motivated on proving the Rajput link , Lets get this Straight, Except Rana Sanga and the GREAT Maharana Pratap , none of the Medieval Rajputs(12th-17th) resisted the Moghals;Since you are so fond of Balakrishnan , let me quote from his book ( Shivaji The great , vol1)" The Hindus of the Deccan made no efforts for three centuries to throw off the Muslim yoke. In Northern India several Hindu kingdoms survived in Rajputana but all of them had become vassals of the Delhi Empire. Even,the Solar Dynasty of Udaipur bowed to the inevitable and accepted the suzerainty of the Great Mogul. The large ^resources of Jodhpur, Jaipur and many other Rajput states were utilized in subjugating the Deccan, in destroying Shivaji, and in swallowing the Muslim states"

Point 3: You seem to be quoting , some thing that is convenient to you and leaving out that is inconvenient . Govind Sakharam Sardesais orignal history work in Marathi " Riayasats" ; at no place does he mention the Bhosales are half descents of the Rajputs; infact even in the link you provided there is a very general statement by Sardesai on the Maratha lineage; But in the same link it says ..." the name Bhosales has not been satisfactorily accounted for ...."

Point 4:At no point did Sir Jadunath Sarkar study or quote the half Rajput Genealogy of the Bhosales.

So the bottom line is , none of the historians (including) Balkrishnan or Ojha did an exclusive study of the genealogy of the Marathas. THE LINEAGE OF ANY CLAN OR RACE CAN NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO SOME PERSIAN SANADS (that also without verification); All their history has been contested and none is accepted as standard history taught in schools and colleges in India. And the most Important : None of the Maratha Chronicles ever claim anything of the Rajputs; There is no evidence if Shivaji or Shahaji or any Maratha sardar to have ever claimed that.

I REMIND YOU AGAIN; THIS IS A CONSENSUS FORUM AND NOT YOUR HOME BLOG PAGE , YOU CAN NOT QUOTE ANYTHING, EXCEPT STANDARD ACCEPTED HISTORY. I REQUEST YOU NOT TO USE THIS FORUM TO FURTHER YOUR ULTERIOR MOTIVES.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushanbush82 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hii Mr 115.242.13.... I JUST READ your last statement and you quoted " ..... the fact is that bhonsle,ghorpade, chavan, salunke, more and many more maratha family are rajputs as can be seen from their names as well. ...." to start with I do not think this is an attitude to develop consensus; you are so hell bent on proving something about the Rajputs , that your only motive seems to be to bring credibility to the Medievel Rajputs. This is not a forum for that , but to put forward standard accepted history. By the last logic about names you put forward; Inder kumar Gujral should be a gujarathi ( but thats not a fact , he comes from Jhelum, Punjab ) ; I have a friend in Pune whose first name is Shahu whose a Maratha and a friend in UP whose last name is Shahu whose a bhumihar  ; By your logic every Patel should come from Patils ; but this is no evidence ; The fact is , In a common cultural spectrum and in a blanket of common indo-aryan language family ; names can be similiar or tweaked versions of each other ; but this serves no evidence of common lineage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhashbhosle55 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

you belong to the lower caste marathi family and we belong to upper caste marathi family and that is the difference we will not allow marathi lower caste to even enter our house maybe you need the official book by some maratha chief then read this ---https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:jRh45e3f1ZwJ:www.resourcedesign.co.in/imgs/samplings/books/A_profile_in_courage.pdf+Shubha+Krishna's+descendants+bhonsle&hl=en&gl=in&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESionoY5VtoJY5xodWNZOvpyq9Xe0CTnECqvzM3SJw2tGqhX6lu9_UgtBebMr3D6G2Xkkq37bdG59JNpwOs2u0vF7GR6vybjyxmHjvKVjrc2S8VqGk8iymND0kiHgN0WEk1XGH0L&sig=AHIEtbSM1tAldjiAvurGKZy7QNvV_eUP1g

the book written by the his highness former chief of ghorpade branch and further plz read the dr balkrishna(shivahji the great) which is written under the kind patronage of the chief of satara bhonsle house go and read the whole interface. Shahji letter is already preserved and it punctured a hole in the theory of their low caste, the jadunath sarkar material is also outdated reason the citation is from 1919 work(Shivaji and his times) whereas in 56 --"Sir Jadunath Sarkar commemoration volumes: Volume 1" go and read this the work was published in 1956 and what jadunath sarkar has to say about the genealogy made by dr balkrishna of kolhapur (shivaji the great), he has termed the genealogy fairly correct, the outdated version of sarkar has been used to propagate the propaganda of shivaji low origin which sarkar has already denied himself in his 56 work.115.241.190.53 (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

THIS IS FOR EVERYBODY TO SEE; MR 115.241.190.53 's very view of history , is through the PRISM OF CASTE, and that is why he is trying to hard to concoct unverified claims , which is not accepted as standard history as proof. Infact Balkrishnans study is based on the same grounds as done by satara bhosale house because of caste preassure at that time; so what you are doing is presenting the same evidence multiple times in different ways . Jadunath Sarkar and even the state GOVT of MAHARASHTRA have never accepted this evidence. Now , My friend , you dont have to try so hard to prove a Rajput link to prove a clans Non-Shudra status. Who has said that only the Rajput are Kshatriyas, there are Ahirs , Jats , Kayastas, Marathas, Khatris , Nairs etc etc etc. A person becomes a Kshatriya by his valour and deeds , and not by the caste he is born in. Chattrapatis Shivajis Mavale were ordinary peasants and soldiers, but they wrecked the largest standing army of tartars at that time. And Btw I also come from the Satara Bhosales ; we moved to pune and mumbai generations ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhashbhosle55 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

same user multiple accounts

the following two users are continuously engaging in edit wars, have created multiple accounts to support their ill-found theory, neither gs sardesai, nor gh ojha nor sarkar discards shivahji rajput origin , the mentality of the user can be judged that he has adopted the user name of "BHONSLE" maybe to convince the wiki users.115.241.190.53 (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr 115.241......please dont try to start something new or try to be a detective here. Neither GS sardesai confirms Shivajis Rajput origin ( go and read the entire volume of "Riyasats " or " the new history of the marathas") and Sarkar clearly denies it in his book "shivaji and hsi times". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhashbhosle55 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

from which world have you come from GS SARDESAI rejects the alternate origin of shivaji and mentions only the rajput origin of shivaji , shubha krishna is the direct ancestor of shivaji. You go and read similarly the book cited by you are shivaji and his times(1919) and the 1958 commoreation of jadunath sarkar disclosed his agreement with the dr balkrishna genealogy of bhosle as the genealogy is of persian sanads kept in bahamani sultan house. The fact is that the other user mathews too has the same view and has been given the ammo to distort the article122.161.13.190 (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Finding agreement on how to portray the descent controversy

Okay, the current situation is untenable; we cannot go back and forth deleting huge chunks of text and reinserting them.

Mention of the school of thought the Shivaji was Rajput certainly cannot be left out, so that's definite. Alternate schools of thought also cannot be left out. However, the Rajput content that's currently contested is not at all usable, as it's not a depiction of the controversy, it's an attempt to prove the point one way or the other. Wikipedia is not about "here's how X theory is right", and definitely not for lengthy lists of quotes to back an argument.

To make this section work, we must absolutely avoid any "... but XYZ theory is wrong, because if you look at this 1835 document..." or the like. What this section must be is something like the following (very, very simplified example):

“ There are varying theories as to Shivaji's community of origin. Some 19th century scholars argued that he was an X, noting that *example*example*. However, at the start of the 20th century the Y community became to prominently feature Shivaji in their political literature, claiming that *example*example*. ”

Note that using pre-modern sources is likely to run afoul of WP:PRIMARY; ideally, rather than citing some 1820, 1890, or 1920 authority to "prove" a point, we should be citing a post-1970 authority who describes the controversy and its various sides. Too much of this Talk page has been a "you're wrong - no, you're wrong", but at this point we need to agree that there is a controversy and work to find a way the controversy can be accurately depicted. Use of pre-modern Primary sources is not valid as we here (as WP editors) are not acting as published PhD India scholars, so instead we need to present and summarise modern academic viewpoints. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to indent your reply by placing a colon before each paragraph, and add a colon more than the person you are replying to to indent one notch to the right of them. And please remember to sign each post by typing ~~~~ or hitting the "sign" button at the top of your editing window.

Matthew Vanitas , I agree with you , this is a public forum and the objective here is to present a neutral and accepted theory.

Its should not be allowed to further caste objectives of one particular person. Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj is a figure of reverence for the whole of India ; but particularly for the entire 96 K MARATHA CLAN , his reverence is second only to God . One author or one royal house's controvertial PRE-MODERN theory can not be presented as facts here. What is important is what is accepted as standard history by majority of people , what is accepted by the state government and taught in schools and colleges.

I mean how ridiculous can it be when on the wiki page of Shivaji , an unproven and contested pre-modern half rajput theory is given so much space , so much so that the most biased author like kaifi khan (who was discarded by all other authors of pre and post modern era) is also used to prove a point. This is not acceptable to any MARATHA.It seems instead of talking about the greatness of Shivaji this wiki page is trying to prove a caste point here.

Till this issue is resolved , none of this fake , and controvertial theory should be displayed on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhashbhosle55 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Subhash, agreed that Shivaji is a a figure of great prominence, and it behooves everyone to tread carefully to improve and uphold the quality of the article. That said, let us refrain from passing judgement on one or the other interpretation of history; we are here to portray the perspectives, not reach conclusions regarding them. If, and I emphasise, if the bulk of current scholars, strongly favour Theory A over Theory B, yes, A should have more prominence. And, ideally, we should find current scholars that also address Theory B and note why it has fallen from favour. If a notable non-academic body (say, a political party) favours theory B or C, and that preference is depicted in neutral, third-party media or academics, those can also be noted.

There is a very good essay on this concept, Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers, which explains how describing controversies is vital to Wikipedia, but engaging in controversies is disruptive. Let's maintain our collegial atmosphere, ensure that theories A/B/C are depicted as described (not "argued") by current scholars. If a given theory, even a "discredited" one has played a social/political role, it is worth noting, and if it has been rebutted by a notable scholar, that is also worth noting. I can't see having any more than two paragraphs on the topic, so if folks want to really, really get into the weeds on this, we may need to have a short summary here, and a separate article on Heritage of Shivaji or similar.

Let's proceed with the agreement that nobody is out to be proven "right", but the goal is to depict the various arguments in a very concise and neutral manner. Ideally, when the section is done, people will be able to say "I believe A, but I agree that the article fairly covers A, B, and C such that an independent reader gets a good grasp of the subject, and it notes that even theories which may not be true have a socio-political impact", and so on for partisans of theories B and C. I would strongly suggest we refrain from any statements like "ridiculous", "flat-out wrong", etc. and instead focus on "what arguments have been portrayed and how are they described in current scholarship." A letter by Shivaji is only important to Wikipedia in that later scholars and leaders have interpreted it; we ourselves are not out to interpret it here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Matthew , I think the comments are fine right now and let us close this controversy. I do not see any point in creating another controvertial topic on heritage etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhashbhosle55 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

We are not "creating" a controversial topic, we are attempting to cover a controversial topic. If folks interested in the Rajput side find the current phrasing neutral enough, we're good there. That said, I know there are other groups (Kurmi, etc) who claim Shivaji is of their group, so at some point we probably want at least a sentence or so (with proper footnotes) mentioning other popular theories. Also, the section now says he may or may not have been Rajput, but for those who disbelieve the Rajput theory, what is their belief as to his ancestral community? MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

For those who disbelieve the Rajput theory , The Shivaji's ancestors belong to the Maratha clans of Satara / Ellora. Do you think we should add that in there ? The Kurmi theory is new to me ; tomorrow every community in the Hindu cultural spectrum will find something in common with any great person ( either a name , language , Kul-devi /Kul-devata , religious affiliations , etc etc ) and claim the person belongs to their caste. But that does not change the known facts as to where the person or his forefathers where born , what they spoke of where they served.I will give you another example , non on the western historians believe in the solar dynastry of Ramchandra in Dwaparyuga ( lakhs of years ago) ; they (including most Indian historians) believe in the aryan invasion theory and the vedic civilization coming from there. The Rajputs are part of one of these hordes of Aryans .But these theories have been contested and counter contested by many historians. So finally what we settle for is the accepted standard history.I do not believe Aryan invasion theory is accepted and taught in schools and colleges in India. Similary the standard accepted history is Shivaji and his forefathers come from the Marathas of Satara/ Ellora.

Make sure to add one more : than the person who posted before you

If the Satara/Ellora theory is the predominant one among current scholars, it'd be great to add that in with a good footnote. If we have several reputable, modern scholars saying "Here are the other theories, since debunked, and most folks now agree he was Satara/Ellora" that should slant our coverage towards depicting Satara/Ellora as "generally agreed upon" and the others as socio-politically notable but not generally academically endorsed today. However, we can't firm up this stance until some folks hit up GoogleBooks (or failing that, a good library) and find us some footnotes.

Not just the Kurmis, but many communities claim Shivaji as "theirs"; while we shouldn't give these claims WP:UNDUE coverage if they're not supported outside the community, if there is a neutral, third party scholar who mentions that such beliefs exist, I could see maybe a sentence or so saying "Additionally, communities such as X, Y, and Z have claimed Shivaji as a member of their lineage.(footnotes)" On that issue, we are less interested in the fact of to whom Shivaji belonged, and more in the fact that "X belief exists and affects a given population's attitude." MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

@mathewvanita dont act like that you are so unbiased the fact is you are biased from the very begining about the rajput origin and only claiming will do no help untill without any evidence , therefore no such claim will be mentioned as their is no evidence to back them up the most authorative maratha historian Sardesai has this for persons like you --Shubha Krishna's descendants are known as Bhosles and form a younger branch of the original family.2 A grandson of this Shubha Krishna was one Babaji Bhosle who died in 1597. Babaji had two sons, Maloji (bom in 1552) and Vithoji. The only point unanswered is the name bhosle from where it comes, some kannada writers claim hoyasala as the origin of bhosle which is wrong as many marathi names have affinity with bhosle such as "GODSE","GOKHALE" these are marathi names with greater affilation to bhosle rather than hoysala. Further Sardesai notes that large number of marathi families are descendants of northern rajputs as they vary in race, physical attributes as well from the local marathi population.Page- 50-52 New history of maratha(sardesai). Go and read and also read jadunath sarkar--Sir Jadunath Sarkar commemoration volumes, Volume 1, page 181-183122.161.13.190 (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=FFzRAAAAMAAJ&q=dr+balkrishna+genealogy+correct&dq=dr+balkrishna+genealogy+correct&hl=en&ei=yahpTvCDCorJrAfJ7q3CBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA this is snippet view but i guess it should be enough to tore apart claims of people like you, the fact is 1924 disclosure of the firmans(royal edicts) has tore apart most of the non-rajput origin claim which were mostly made by kanada scholars as pointed by sardesai, they try to link hoyasala with bhosle even though no grammar of this world will derive the word bhosle with hoyasala and rather "gokhale" or "godse" are more close in their writing style specially in devnagri script. The genealogy made by dr balkrishna--http://www.archive.org/stream/shivajithegreatv030775mbp/shivajithegreatv030775mbp_djvu.txt is the best work on shivahji till date with the only book the only book to have copies of the royal edicts traslated by dr apte and the book received great value as the most well researched book on shivaji and maratha , the kannada writers went bersek on this book because their claims were tore apart, the newer version(6th edition)1994 publication however dont have the historically important sanads but the older versions carried those copies. Stop quoting sarkar as the opposer of shivaji rajput origin(shivaji and his times-1919) that time the sanads were not discovered from the royal house it was discovered in 1924 and the first man to confirm the rajput origin of shivaji was most probably the greatest maratha historian Sardesai. G.S. Now i will wait to see which historian in india with the same reputaion of sardesai, ojha and sarkar has contested the rajput origin plz let me know.122.161.13.190 (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.in/search?rlz=1C1DVCL_enIN409IN410&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=g#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1C1DVCL_enIN409IN410&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=Sir+Jadunath+Sarkar+observes%2C+%22the+farman+fixes+the+exact+date+of+the+Maratha+acquisition+of+Kondana+and+Shahji's+first+rupture+with&pbx=1&oq=Sir+Jadunath+Sarkar+observes%2C+%22the+farman+fixes+the+exact+date+of+the+Maratha+acquisition+of+Kondana+and+Shahji's+first+rupture+with&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=19293l19293l12l19588l1l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e22a504087e4eddb&biw=1280&bih=629 i hope this will help as well, those fools who are trying to defame sarkar by using his name as the rajput opposer and definetely unaware of the later developments the firmans(royal edicts) released in 1924 and therefore it was not the mistake of sarkar as he dont have the priveilage of the firmans but most of the history post firman released is known by the firmans and the firman is of great importance in tearing the claims of other authors the fact none of the rajput historian has written anything about maratha or shivahji on the other hand kannada historians have tried almost everything even linking bhosle with hoyasala with no possibility reason being BH and H are not at all resonating alphabets and when we deal in devnagri script then their is even less chance to derive these words together. The earlier work of sarkar(1919) being used to defame not only shivahji but also defaming a noted historian(sarkar) himself if sarkar was arrogant like you he would have never accepted his mistake but the fact is he was not in possesion of firmans during 1919(shivaji and his times) work which he started writing in 1911 and completed in late 1918.122.161.13.190 (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And second thing your doubts are not reasonable because their are multiple claims over Shivaji any historian will write possibly or probably because to say with 100% accuracy is impossible as the origin of bhosle is very old but most historians dont consider other origins the fact is the genealogy of bhosle is more or less correct(according to mr sarkar as well as also sardesai) but the one mystery is the surname bhosle , ghorpade surname mystery was solved easily as it is a marathi word for those warrior who conquer some tough enemy fort but the bhosle surname is still mystery which has been noted by all sardesai, ojha , chatterjee etc but apart from that genealogy and other things only support one origin that is sisodia. Kannada historians(many of them from souther maharastra) have tried to link bhosale with hoyasala but its unlikely and neither the two are resonating words bhosle is more marathi like gokhale,godse, the "O" comes after first alphabet and ends with le-se etc rather than with hoyasala refer to sardesai history of maratha he has pointed out that few scholars claim bhosle as hoysala and also doubt the authenticity of firmans but it is obvious in this country regionalism and casteism will stay for ever and hence we cannot give any importance to kannada scholars reason they proved Vijaynagra empire kannada origin(also contested by tamil scholars) by the help of the kingdom documents which used kannada as language and now they doubt persian firmans, this will go on for ever.---http://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=mahaparinivvana+sutta+49+BC&btnG=#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=migrated+from+the+north+and+settled+in+Maharashtra%2C+representing+to+this+day+the+Rajput+or+Kshatriya+blood&pbx=1&oq=migrated+from+the+north+and+settled+in+Maharashtra%2C+representing+to+this+day+the+Rajput+or+Kshatriya+blood&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=637244l652297l10l652441l39l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e22a504087e4eddb&biw=1280&bih=629 this is what sardesai writes that "though bhosle derivation is still a mystery but no doubt about mass migration of rajputs and other kshatriyas from north to south" and if that includes bhosle or not its not easy but mass migration of rajputs has been accepted by all ojha, sardesai , sarkar etc further these historians have atleast consider the rajput origin no one even think about the kannada origin one big reason INCEST DEFINITION. Dravidians hindu marry with cousins and near relatives in north india hindus such marriage is very very strongly prohibited and not a single maratha clan marry among their own relatives no matter how distant relatives they are.122.161.13.190 (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

First dont portray your personal interests, Mathews Vanitha for long has been acting for some vested interest, according to him all the various claims should be mentioned then he is wrong , the claims accpeted till a certain extent should be shown and not any other claim. Second one said GS sardesai never said bhosle are rajputs he need to read the last work of sardesai(new history of maratha-1946) 5 times he has traced bhosle to the sisodia the only missing point was he was not satisfied how did family get bhosle as "surname or name". Similarly Sarkar is not an obstacle the unpublished letters and notes published in 1958 work was the one where Sarkar was in agreement with DR Balkrishna work on the genealogy of bhosle , he term the genealogy "fairly correct" its obvious no one can say with 100% whereas the genealogy is 100% correct or not but yeah its pretty much accurate , second the word used by historians to show their own inclination is possibly, probably they uses this word for those which they favour another great historian though the writer of this portion was sardesai it was edited by majumdar as well it needs a mentionhttp://books.google.co.in/books?id=kHpDAAAAYAAJ&q=They+claimed+descent+from+the+Sisodla+Ranas+of+Chitor+and+Udaipur&dq=They+claimed+descent+from+the+Sisodla+Ranas+of+Chitor+and+Udaipur&hl=en&ei=LBJqTpSeHYiOiAevwu3OBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA. According to this it is very much possible that their was migration of these people who started bhosle branch can anyone can bring the agreement of such noted historians for alternate shivaji origin. The onus is on the opposers to prove it wrong just claiming big that these documents are wrong or that are wrong will not do and dont enter edit war. Sarkar opposition to rajput origin is based on his much earlier work(1919).Shail kalp (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Y'all are not grasping the issue here: regardless of accuracy, you are portraying the issue in a confusing way. The block of text you're re-inserting has no cohesive flow with the text amongst which it is dumped, and is a lengthy argument vice a clear summary of schools of thought. Quoting a full paragraph of an 1817 work is not helpful in this regard. The article is not a debating-space, it's a place to summarise issues. In the version I reverted to, there is a nice clear explanation of the Rajput school, which nobody has bothered to add a reference to. We aren't here to use WP:Primary sources, so please instead find one or two of the most reputable/neutral/comprehensive descriptions of the Rajput Shivaji issue, and cite those. Having a lengthy argument gets into the "methinks though dost protest too much" area. If the Rajput theory is indeed the single most supported theory by modern academics, there should be no problem finding a work by a reputable and neutral scholar from the last 30 years which concisely describes the argument and any rebuttals, which can be summarised in a few sentences. Please desist from re-inserting the bulky and misplaced chunk of text, and don't refer to deletions as "unexplained" when I've explained them in Talk and in every single Edit Summary. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

---

LETS GET ONE THING CLEAR : WE THE MARATHAS WILL NOT TOLERATE BIZAARE CLAIMS MADE BY THOSE FANATIC KANADA WRITERS LIKE DHERE / KAMAT ETC . ON THIS ISSUE WE ARE ONE......JAI BHAVANI

i have read abt claims by dhere and that buffooon is trying to link Bhosale and hoysala ;This is such nonsense , that it does not even deserve a debate; these low life fanatic kannada writers have no credibility even in their own state ; the only objective of these so called fake kannada writters is to claim credit due to others; they claim the rathores of rajastan , punjabis ,Tuljapur Bhavani , Vithoba , etc etc ; these fake writters and the supporters suffer from deep inferiority complex . I have seen many such fanatic kanads here like sarvgya, dinesh kannamdi etc etc ; beware of these people.

AGAIN : WE ARE ONE ON THIS ISSUE AND WE WILL NOT TOLERATE CLAIMS BY THESE ILLITERATE , IGNORANT, FANATIC KANNADA WRITERS LIKE DHERE.

Are you saying that people of Maharashtra have absolutely no connection with Kannada people ? The geographical proximity makes it an absurd claim. By the way, how is Kamat a Kannada name ? To me it is a Konkani Saraswat brahmin name. Jonathansammy (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

IAM talking abt the bizarre claims made by fanatic kannada writers like dhere....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushanbush82 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushanbush82 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

bhushan ....nobody is talking abt those discredited kannada writters...; lets not waste our time in even entertaining bizarre ideas of that kannada writter; that is out of the window ; no neutral historian has even considered their arguments.At least the half Rajput theory is accepted by some historians.

Lets get this thing straight first ; Chattrapati Shivaji was and is a Maratha, his father was Maratha; his grandfather Maloji was a Maratha; His great grandfather Babaji bhosale was a feudal lord of pedgaon (near pune) and a Maratha. Till this point it is usually agreed by all historians. Now beyond this ,there are only 2 schools of thought : one would be , from Shivajis Paternal side (FATHERS SIDE) , 6 or 7 generation before babaji , the ancestors descended from the Ranas of Mewar.

and the other is Bhosales were local feudals and there is no established migration from anywhere.This is the common accepted history and what is taught in schools and colleges in the state. None of the Maratha chronicles ever claim , nor did Shivaji ever claim to be a rajput OR ANYBODY ELSE.His claim is only that if being a MARATHA. Also , the sanads are no gospels or genealogy experts of the world. And the 1919 argument of Jadunath Sarkar stays as he never claimed to have studied the firmans or carried out any independent study.

My point to 122.......is that there is no need to write 5 paragraphs or copy paste from a 1817 book. It is already explained concisely in 2 short paragraphs

And and you can be least assured , I will not let you put biased opinions of kaifi khan , he was discredited by every neutral historian

Persian

Khan, Hamid-ud-din. Ahkam-i-Alamgiri. Khan, Khafi. Muntakhab-ul-lubab. Lahori, A. H. Padishahnamah. Nurullah, Sayyid. Tarikh-i-AH Adil Shah II. Ruqat-i-Alamgiri.

Sanads with the Rajasaheb of MudhoL Sanads with B. Itihas S. Mandala. Poona. Tarikh-i-Shivaji. Translated by J. Sarkar in Modern

someone said jadunath sarkar has not seen the persian sanads(seriously) , the bibilography of dr balkrishna shivaji the great--http://www.archive.org/stream/shivajithegreatv030775mbp/shivajithegreatv030775mbp_djvu.txt however says that persian sanads were translated into english by Jadunath sarkar and into marathi by dr balkrishna and bv apte. similarly to say that shivaji and his times(1919) was his last word no its wrong that book was criticized very much first the shivaji birth date was wrong in that book dr balkrishna says 19-feb 1630 whereas jadunath sarkar said april 1627 but the date which is now accpeted is feb 1630 and not april 1627 similarly many other details such as capturing of various forts in his earlier work were dated wrongly hence if any historian changes his stance with new source its not wrong but this shows the greatness or generosity of the historian which sarkar is he may not be a ranken school historian who relies heavily on sources but still he accepted his mistake in his later works the commoreation volume(1958) similarly sardesai is inclined towards Rajput origin he has also noted the kannada scholars but do not seem to agree with them he wrote in new history of maratha-"some scholars(def kannada) detects linguistic affinity between bhosale and hoyasala and maintains a completely different origin of the great maratha raj, however shubhakrishna descenadants were known as bhosale as mentioned in sanads but their is no satisfactory reason for this" he further notes " their is no doubt that many of the present day maratha families are descendants of rajputs or kshatriyas of north india" Page-51-52 New history of maratha(gs sardesai-1946 publication). Similarly Gh Ojha another great historian of india he too maintain that not only bhonsale a hell lot of maratha are rajputs or kshatriyas of north india.(udaipur ka itihas-Pandit MM Rao Bahadur GH Ojha). Therefore the general trend is that marathas are rajputs, are their more rajputs in rajasthan than in UP/MP/BIHAR answer is no then who are "DOGRA RAJPUTS" who was gulab singh dogra who was called sher-e-kashmir by ranjit singh because gulab singh was never defeated in a single war against AFGHANS. My name is Shailesh Chavan i am told that i am a chauhan rajput reason i belong to general category therefore neither i am a shudra neither a dalit surely not a brahmin and neither a vaishya our family was always involve in marital race and i believe that many maratha like me are rajputs we are maratha because many of our generations are living in maharashtra Shail kalp (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Second thing all the maratha families have always maintained that they are rajputs, be it maloji,shahji(letter to adil shah) shivaji or his next generations similarly other maratha warriors like ghorpade,chavan,more,salunke,Pawar,Deshmukh are rajputs and if all maratha generals claim rajput then why holkar and sindhia did not claim themselves rajputs therefore the general view is that shivahji a rajput as Majumdar in his monumental work mention that "POSSIBLY" a family of sisodia may have fled to central india whereas he do not mention any other origin of maratha such as "HOYASALA" first of all bhosale is more resonating with "gokhale" "godse" "bhogle" these are all marathi names and not kannadi Hoyasala cannot derive bhosale , second thing DR BALKRISHNA work is more authentic than error filled sarkar earlier work , maharashtra govt dont accept even the date of birth of sarkar the accepted date is that by dr balkrishan.(Evn sardesai DOB is same as sarkar). Sarkar was greatest authority of mughals, sardesai greatest authority of maratha but the best book came from a non-history student(balkrishna of kolhapur).All of you should read this---http://www.resourcedesign.co.in/imgs/samplings/books/A_profile_in_courage.pdfShail kalp (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

MatthewVanitas asked me to come take a look at this discussion/article. First, a question, to MV: can you confirm that the alternate theories (the "Shivaji is not Rajput" theories) are verified by reliable sources? I see one source in the article right now (Sharad Pawar, the Maratha legacy, by Bakshi)--are there more? If the alternate theory is held by only a single academic, then it might be too fringe to include. I will admit that I have only scanned both the text and this very long discussion here, so maybe I missed something, but I figured it might be faster if I asked directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't delved too deeply yet, just seen lots of mentions, and at least one editor amongst the spaghetti above seems to be posting refs showing doubt of the Rajput theory. I found one book which cites R. C. Dhere, and explains the argument that Shivaji was of southern vice Rajput stock, and how that theory upsets Marathas: [2]. I can't find the original Dhere book, but Dhere appears quite widely cited indeed; no WP on him yet, but there's a Dhere draft which indicates Dhere is from Maharashtra, had a 55+ year career in writing on folk belief and legends, had a DLit, etc. Suffice to say, thus far I'm finding at least evidence that the claim is not universally accepted, and a ton of resources use the word "claim" vice "was" Rajput, and/or make reference to a belief that his genealogy was contrived by Brahmins.

Again, not trying to get The Truth, just wanting to reflect that even today there are a variety of theories, though as the fellow citing Dhere notes, the non-Rajput theories are quite upsetting to some folks. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There are also refs from 1872[3] to 1998[4] (the latter's author seems to check out with GoogleScholar) stating that Shivaji was a Kurmi; would that not be incompatible with being a Rajput? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, MatthewVanitas. It seems that there is legitimate disagreement among at least some writers about whether or not Shivaji are Rajput. As such, our article must reflect this fact. All of the claims above that these are biased, or bizarre, or whatever, are irrelevant--if the author is widely cited, and well respected, the alternative view must be included. As always, I'm less comfortable looking to books from the 1800s for verification, but do with those as you see fit. So, to those people objecting to this alternate theory, you have basically one recourse: show that Dhere either does not meet the reliable sources guidelines, or that this view is so fringe that it simply doesn't deserve mention per WP:UNDUE. Note that piling on more "evidence" that Shivaji are Rajput is not helpful--you need to specifically show that the other theory is WP:FRINGE. If you cannot do so, the information should be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dheres malicious theory was fringe and undue as per Wikipedias definition ; and it is not supported even to an inkling by any reliable historian like Sardesai , Sarkar , Balakrishan , or Ojha . Infact it is extremely offending to every Maratha for it is purely mischievous and malicious. The Rajput Theory is supported by most renowed and reliable historians ; there is no doubt on this matter.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhashbhosle55 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

First, no page-lines. Second, evidence, please. I don't know one Indian historian from another. Please find a historian, publishing in a reliable journal, stating that only the Rajput theory is considered viable by historians. Or find a historian explciitly stating that Dheres' theory is not accepted. A Google Scholar search shows citations of RC Dhere's work, although that in and of itself is not a reliable piece of evidence due to the way citations and Google Scholar itself works. In other words, neither I nor anyone else on Wikipedia is just going to trust you when you say Dhere's theory isn't widely considered--you have to prove it. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

the eminent historians whose references backing the Rajput theory are provided, clearly dismiss dheres theory; check through ALL the earlier evidence that is already provided before commenting . good bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhushanbush82 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you say and I quote "I don't know one Indian historian from another". Could you explain what you mean by that ? Thank you.Jonathansammy (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems fairly self-explanatory to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's try and keep the quotes/summaries as concise as possible, and put [ and ] around the links to make them a compact little block. I went searching for specific criticisms of Dhere's hypothesis. I've found several mentions of them (though I've only gone through a page or so of hits on "dhere shivaji" on gBooks). Most interesting one thus far:

• Xenophobia in Seventeenth-Century India, Gijs Kruijtzer[5]: "Ananya Vajpeyi encourages us to take R. C. Dhere's hypothesis about about Shivaji's pastoral ancestry seriously..." Same book also mentions the Sisodia Rajput claim as "destined to remained disputed forever", which this Talk page certainly bears out...
• Intersections: socio-cultural trends in Maharashtra, Meera Kosambi[6]: cites Dhere's argument and builds on it.

Again, we are not here to debate The Ultimate Truth as to Shivaji's ancestry. We are here to ascertain what theories have currency in academia (or are historically notable), and Dhere's theory is referenced by several other academics thus far, as are the Kurmi theories. Statements like "low life fanatic kannada writers" only decrease the credibility of y'all's objections; we have to address this without bias and emotion. Thus far, I'm seeing that there are indeed multiple arguments, and that the Southern and Kurmi theories are not simply found in propaganda leaflets, but are commented on with favour by scholars. And even if that argument were solely the purview of Kannada scholars, it would still be notable and worth at least a sentence of "some Kannada scholars believe..." Am I right in guessing that "Gijs Kruijtzer" is not a Kannada name? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

TO start with the first link , Gijs argument is very generic and speaks of low caste person etc ; it does not talk anything about Dhere nor does it claim to have studied a specific genealogy or claim anything.

Secondly ; Mosambi does not build on any argument , but just quotes Dhere again ;

So my advice to you is go and find some credible historians work who present a specific case based on evidence like Dr Sardesai or Dr Balakrishnan , and not make naive statements like i have seem may scholors endorse etc.

Right now , the way it is presented is most neutral , 

And Matthew , please don't act like you have no vested interests here ??? Not just me ,if you look at the history of the discussion, many people ( including mr 122.161 .13..... ) have accused you of being biased and serving a vested interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhashbhosle55 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've just read over and compared everything, and I (quite unsurprisingly) find myself agreeing with MattthewVanitas' interpretations here. The Rajput theory isn't the only one covered in academic sources, and we don't follow a group's own personal analysis of who they are. I will have a considerable amount of time on my hands tomorrow, so I can search for further sources, but it's readily obvious to me that the Southern and Kurmi theories have received some significant amount of coverage. I can't say exactly how to weight it against the Rajput claim just yet, but it is definitely worth a mention. And I wouldn't go around calling people biased if I were you; for the record, I am an American of European descent (1/2 German 1/4 Irish, and 1/4 French Canadian), with a specialty in studying Ainu history, so I have no stake in this beyond wanting to see a balanced, accurate article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And Matthew , please don't act like you have no vested interests here ... accused you of being biased and serving a vested interest. - Fortunately, Wikipedia has a variety of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms. If you feel I am acting in bad faith, pusing a biased perspective, or misbehaving, you are free to report me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Bear in mind that to have any hope of success, you have to provide specific examples of my "misbehavior", ideally by using the History tab, and selecting the link showing the material I have added. You would then need to explain "MV is adding blatantly pro-Kannada material and uncited derogatory material..." or whatever it is you're accusing me of in a clear, and concise fashion such that anyone new to the situation would clearly grasp that I'm out of line. Your options at this point are to either take me to ANI, or stop making baseless accusations, as in all honesty your behaviour in making these accusations is rude and becoming disruptive. Either file and ANI report on me at your earliest convenience, or hold your peace and respond in a polite manner to the clearly-referenced statements I'm making. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In answer to JonathanSammy's query, "Qwyrxian, you say and I quote 'I don't know one Indian historian from another'. Could you explain what you mean by that ?", what I meant is that I don't know, by name or reputation, any specific scholars of the history of India. I said that because I asked for evidence of scholars saying Dhere is wrong, and Subhashbhosle55 just gave me a list of what, to me, are random names. For all I know, Dhere is completely fringe and those names are the best in the field; or, alternatively, Dhere is one of the most widely read and revered experts and that list of names is Fringe. Thus, I was saying that we need more than just a list of names, but an actual accounting of the specific sources and authors along with who published them and exactly what they said. I'm trying to provide a framework for discussion here--it's not enough just to assert "Nobody important agrees with Professor X"; you need to back that fact with specific proof. So far, I see specific, clear proof that Dhere has been cited by other authors, who seem to accept his theory (or, at least, accept it as a possible alternate theory). I've also seen clear evidence that some scholars think Dhere is wrong. What I haven't seen is any evidence that says that Dhere is so wrong that he should be considered unreliable and FRINGE. If that last point cannot be proven, then we cannot leave Dhere (and the same reasoning applies to any of the non-Rajput theories) out of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

New section format

dont waste time on that useless, loser(qxyrian) , the new format should include only those who are noted and not 3rd class kannada historians like dhere, The names of historians that can be use should be above doubt and has been quoted heavily reason being biasedness of historians. Sarkar, Ojha, balkrishan and sardesai makes the cut as all 4 are great historians(leaving balkrishna). Though not a historian dr balkrishna work is easily the best biography of shivaji and that was his first and last historical book on shivaji not difficult to think that even britannica call the work(not balkrishna) on shivaji as the most detailed and factually correct word on shivaji till date. Sarkar may be great historian , balkrishna was not a historian but his book was miles miles above that of sarkar(whose poor knowledge of marathi didnt allow him to examine the documents) further he neglected portugese and dutch accounts altogether. Now apart from that two historical sources for shivaji rajput origin that can be quoted in jayaram work on shahji(1654) and shahji letter to adilshahg(1646) both are much before shivaji coronation and tears apart fake claims of other historians. In non-rajput origin hoyasala origin can be added with "some scholars detects linguistic affinity" type of thing but at the same time no genealogy is available for that even the grandfather of maloji cannot be certained by that theory . Those men who praise aurangzeb , it is not difficult to think that they will try their best to make every hero a low caste. I can quote radha kumud mookerji here "it is fond of making hero who rises from a low origin" this statement in his work chandragupta maurya and his times show the glory which some writers who are pro-lower caste want to bestow on them. Any man who is pro muslim will be pro lower caste as we can see from our political system in india. The unsourced material of sarkar in his earlier work was not challenged(maybe because of his name or because much bigger historians such as majumdar, raychoudhuri did not wrote about shivaji) but Dr Balkrishna tears apart the claim of sarkar(he retracted later on). Similarly even though only one history book on his name Dr Balkrishna suggested feb 1630 as DOB of shivaji whereas april 1627 was suggested by sarkar, sardesai and even The great leader BG Tilak which was not accepted reason being ignoring the hardwork in ransacking the archives of various records will take time. The official DOB of shivaji is feb 1630 and not april 1627 this shows that if you have the hard work and true to your work it dont matter whom you are opposing , dr balkrishna is mainly a economists passed from university of london in economics still his word on shivaji is given more importance though at the same time a lot of critics have popped up, but as Majumdar said in calcutta in RSS yearly meeting " critics dont want to make you better they want to destroy you, only a man can be a true critics of himself. A man who came under pressure of critics never succeed" Dr Balkrishna is hated by many because of his work who has such strong evidences to prove shivaji rajput origin that other historians keep on thinking , and one more thing "History is similar to politics". Modi cannot be praised by Congress no matter what good work he do, they will criticize him of riots(with their own hands red in 1984 sikh riots) similarly a historian proven wrong by another will always criticize him, but it dont matter because any independent reader can see the amount of difference in shivaji the great(vol-1-4) and other works on shivahji by sarkar or sardesai . The sources have been neglected by many are considered by balkrishna. The sources section of various books on shivaji tell the story on their own. Come up with your suggestions what should be added in the new section, 4 historians are centre to this sarkar, ojha, balkrishna and sardesai and other scholars can be noted through "SOME" tag.

Shail kalp (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but all I see in the above claims is a bunch of your opinions about whose work is better, more relevant, more famous, or whatever. Your opinions are, frankly, irrelevant to deciding what goes into a Wikipedia article. We need specific, clear sources (that is, don't just say "sarkar, ojha, etc.". Say their full name, with a book, publishing info, etc., so that other editors can exam the work as well. Second, if you have verification in RS that one writer or another is more famous/revered/more matching the wider consensus of historians, please provide that; don't bother with giving us your opinions about various writers. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

you keep quite you useless editor with no knowledge, get the hell out of here.Shail kalp (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)