Talk:36 royal races

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Obvious point: which is the extra one? 37 is not 36. The Huna?

This list can't be left in an editable format[edit]

If we leave it editable, random people are going to come in here and add or subtract names, with good or ill intentions. Since Tod's book is out of copyright, probably the easiest way around this is just to scan an image of that page of the book, post it here as an image, and have the article be about the concept while the list remains an image which cannot be tampered with. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You missed Ahirs, so i am adding it.(Tod, 1829, Vol1, p69 ii, p358) Raosaab7 (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The term "Ahir" was added to the middle of a direct quote. You do understand that you can't change a quote, yes? We can't suddenly put words into someone's mouth 140 years ago. I removed the incorrectly-added term from the quote, and added Ahirs to "Disputed inclusions". I'm a bit confused about it, because a few authors have mentioned Ahirs being on Tod's list, but I have a copy of Tod's list posted right there on the page, and I'm not seeing "Ahir" or any spelling variant thereof listed there. Do you know if things changed between editions, or whether Tod used a different term for them? Thanks for any ideas on this disjunct. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I find Ahir (Abhirs]] on the Tod's List Page 443 he discussed and also in the Chand Bardai's Raso at Sl. No. 10.

Please refer- in Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han: Or the Central and Western ..., Volume 1 By James Tod. --Mahensingha 13:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahensingha (talkcontribs) --Mahensingha 13:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

36 royal races doesn't mean only "Rajpoots"[edit]

Why are you so pro Rajpoots and anti shudras {Jat, Ahir and Gujjars}. What does 36 royal races of Rajasthan means .It means it can be any race or tribe doesn't mean it has to be rajpoot. Please read Indian history , there has been times that other tribes other than Rajpoots have been rulers, kings and fought wars, just to remind you Rajpoot is a mixture of many castes which inclding jats, ahirs , goojar and meenas too.Sumitkachroo (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even slightly "pro-Rajpoot", and their articles are long overdue for a POV cleanup, particularly since the Rajput articles on WP have a lot of glaring ommissions as to they pre-Kshatriya status outside the varna system before they became Hindus. But in any case, the "36 royal races" is a specific concept, not an attempt to list all the groups that have ever produced a king. What we are listing is what different scholars have produced as far as the suppose "list of 36". Col. Tod's is the most famous, but as I note in the article it was roundly criticised as inaccurate even in its own time. This article has nothing to do with personal opinion, we're just looking at a historical issue. If you have any other sources discussing the "36 royal races", that is, claimed lists of the 36, not "let's MV and Sumit sit down together and make up our own list", by all means share it. I'm not applying any personal opinion here, I'm just summarising what any available sources say. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The only mention of even the word "Rajput" occurs in a direct quote from the 1870s from the Calcutta review. Why are you accusing me of bias because of something someone wrote 140 years ago? I don't claim that it's "correct", I'm just using it as an example that people even back then would argue about how accurate Tod's list was. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why todd included Gujjars, Ahir/Yadavs and Jats in list.[edit]

Dahima:- According to originator of 36 royal races Mr Colonel Todd considered this tribe to be extinct, but they have three or four villages in Baghpat (western uttar pradesh). There are also Dahima Ahirs and Dahima Jats in the same neighbourhood.--Rajasthan , i.p.199. Which concludes that That originator of Dahima Race got mixed with Ahirs and Jats.

Mohal or Mohil race is also a Yadava gotra {Yadavas through the ages, from ancient period to date, Volume 2-page-215}, also according to Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West Frontier Province By H.A. Rose, IBBETSON, Maclagan Mohal is Yaduvanshi Ahir gotra.

Dahirya or Dahiya is a prominant Jat and Yaduvanshi Ahir Gotra.Swami Omanand Saraswati points out that the Ahirs and Jats of Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh ;specially the residents of Tajupur , Dayalpur villages of Gurgaon district and Tatarpur village of Meerut district, belonged to Dahiya or Dheya family .

Jit or Jat , According to {Hindu tribes and castes as represented in Benares, Volume 3-page-73} a book by famous Matthew Atmore Sherring Jit means Jat, not rajputs.He furthur says that Jits (jats) were in possession of the north western division of Rajputana before the Rajputs entered the province.

Gohil, According to Indian Anthropological Society's Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society, Volume 35-page 251 Gohils themselves claim Ahir descent.

Birgojjar or Badgujjar , Bargujars were originally Gujjars. The name of this clan is derived from Hindi Bara 'Great' and 'Gujar', which simply means great Gujars. Historian R. V. Russell also stated that bargujars have been simply a section of the Gujjars.

This concludes that these so called 36 royal races is nothing but a mixture of Gujjars , ahirs and jats and doesn't means specifically Rajputs.Sumitkachroo (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so what is it you'd like to be done based upon this? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the significance of the list anyways?[edit]

As firmly stated by Kipling Society, "The Rajputs proper were of mixed origin – pre-Muslim invaders such as Scythians, Bactrians, Parthians, Hunas and Gurjaras who came in before, say, the end of the 7th century."

For the sake of WP:RS, you may require to visit google books, but it's not possible to keep Tod off the article for reasons!

Rajputs are merged descendents of the mentioned 36 races; so please put this on the article, as readers must get to know the basic answer to the question — What is the significance of the list? — (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There isn't really a "this list" - as the article notes there is a vague concept that there are "36 royal races", and various people have tried to make lists, which don't necessary agree with each other at all. I fail to see how the 8 footnotes the article now has are not WP:RS, and quite clearly we got most of them from GoogleBooks, so it's not as though folks writing the article are unfamiliar with gBooks. So far as "significance", it's a concept that's come up in history, and people are interested in reading about it. Overall, I'm just not understanding your concerns or questions here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
What is the relation between the 36 Royal (non-ethnic meaning of the title "Rajput) Races & Rajput caste of India? — (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
That's a good question, but Wikipedia is not a forum, so we can discuss if there are sources that cover the relationship of the Rajputs to the 36, and whether that should be included, but all discussions here on Talk need to be in the context of improving the article., you state above that Rajputs are "merged descendants" of the 36; can you provide some good high quality academic references, ideally from GoogleBooks, to support this? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, actually, the Rajput (ethnic) caste is the merged descendent of the 36 Royal (non-ethnic) races of ancient India. Actually, to minimize the influence of Buddhism and Jainism in India, the Brahmins organized a grand yagya at Mount Abu in Rajasthan, which continued for 40 days. Almost all the ruling clans attended this yagya. The ruling clans which took part in this yagya were titled as ‘Rajputs’. Four Kshatriyas appeared from the agnikunda namely, Solankis, Pratiharas, Chauhans and Paramaras. They were termed, "Agnivanshi Kshatriyas".

But, another strong view-point about the origin of modern Rajput caste is that Rajputs (ethnic) were strictly Hunas who moved to India as barbarian invaders, but after settling down there, they were included in main-stream society as nobles, and the Brahmins performed a yagya for their shuddhikaran (a Hindi or Sanskrit word meaning purification in english). And, I'm aware of some Indian authors directly or indirectly attesting the authenticity of the yagya event performed by Brahmins. I will probably check them out if they met WP:RS; and then share the sources here.

As Vincent Smith has quoted in The Early History of India, "Who were these Rajputs, and why do they and their affairs make such a stir during the centuries before the Mohammedan period ....".

Anyways, there is & must be a co-relation between the 36 Rajput (non-ethnic) Races & the modern Rajput caste. — (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


Namaste Guyz, Please accept My apologies for this [1], also, Please do note that I have fixed it back-to-back [2]. Sincerely !! ← Abstruce 12:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)