|The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Please familiarize yourself with the sanctions authorized for this topic area before making further edits.|
|WikiProject India / History||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Former countries||(Rated Start-class)|
The Bhosle is a Rajput Kshatriya Maratha clan.In 1836 Mr. Enthoven states, the Sesodia Rāna of Udaipur, the head of the purest Rājpūt house, was satisfied from inquiries conducted by an agent that the Bhonslas and certain other families had a right to be recognised as Rājpūts. Colonel Tod states that Sivaji was descended from a Rājpūt prince Sujunsi, who was expelled from Mewār to avoid a dispute about the succession about A.D. 1300. Sivaji is shown as 13th in descent from Sujunsi.
Chhatrapati ("Chhatrapati= Chief, head or King of Kshatriyas") Shivaji Maharaj, representing the protection he bestowed on his people) on June 6, 1674 at the Raigad fort, and given the title Kshatriya Kulavantas Sinhasanadheeshwar Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Pandit Ganga Bhatt, a renown Brahmin from Varanasi, officially presided over the ceremony declaring that Shivaji's ancestor's were truly Kshatriyas who descended from the solar line of the Ranas of Mewar. The actual date of Shivaji's birth was under controversy but now settled on date as 19 February 1627. Shivaji's grandfather Maloji Bhonsle claimed descent from the Sisodia clan of Rajputs.  
BHOSLE OR BHOSLA ARE SISODIYA RANA'S OF MEWAR
BHOSLE IS A RANA SISODIYA CLAN .......BHOSLA REPRESENT THE RANA OF MEWAR........ IS A SISHODIYA CLAN . LINERAGE IS OF FROM SISODIYA RANA CLAN FROM MEWAR......
Article needs improving
I tagged this article as needing to be wikified. The lead section is OK but the rest is poorly laid out and may include non-notable info.
This article was biased it seems that one writer is given importance over other, their seems to be no verifiable evidence of shivaji shudra origin, History is not defined by writing books but by evidence that too from reliable sources , to write things like this "maharastra brahmin refused to coronate shivaji" is completely fake this is opinion of one of the historian who thinks that shivaji was shudra but this is not a fact because it is not supported by evidence the book composed by legendary marathi poet jayaram belongs much earlier to shivaji coronation and it describes him as sisodia rajput. I am yet to see any single piece of evidence to support the shudra origin.
SOURCES AND SCHOLARS BOTH ARE DIVIDED ON ORIGIN
as a maratha myself and a history student i would like to point that dont write this "local brahmins doubted his ksahtriya origin , and he called a brahmin from all the way from varanasi" this is completely false and fabricated statement which was written by anti-rajput historian Jadunath sarkar(whose date as well as many facts related to shivaji have been rejected by most historians further he dont know marathi).
When one of the most powerful Hindu warrior wants to coronate himself will he think about "LOCAL BRAHMINS" i really doubt that Kings used to summon the best of brahmins for good omen as more famous and reknowned the brahmin is it increases the prestige of King itself. Further when local brahmins doubted his kshatriya ancestry he chose the best brahmin from "VARANASI WHICH IS UNDISPUTED CENTRE OF HINDUISM" it sounds so fake that shivaji consulted a brahmin from varanasi after being rejected by local brahmins.
Similarly he can "BUY BEST BRAHMINS OF VARANASI BUT COULD NOT BUY LOCAL BRAHMINS" these points seriously led us to question the this very theory now the source which "SPREAD THIS FABRICATION THAT SHIVAJI WAS REJECTED BY LOCAL BRAHMINS" is a gift of "91 QALMI BAKHAR" a work of 1760s which anti-rajput origin scholars try to show as around 1680-1690 even though neither the writer was known to shivaji and nor any other early text refer to this work.
Now the reason "THIS 1760S work is the first work from any circle which speaks of SHIVAJI AS SHUDRA AND NOT SESODIA RAJPUTS" this has been rejected by neutral historian on very sound ground. "THE WRITER OF THIS BAKHAR KNEW THAT BY 1750-1760 MARATHA EMPIRE HAS ACHIEVED WHAT NO HINDU EMPIRE WAS ABLE TO ACHIEVE AND THIS MARATHA MOVEMENT WAS GIFT OF SHIVAJI MAHARAJ BHOSLE HENCE THE AUTHOR WAS IN FULL KNOWLEDGE AND HENCE TO CLAIM CREDIT FOR SHUDRA HE MADE SHIVAJI A SHUDRA ".
On contrary Shahji Bhosle letter to sultan adil shah in 1641 AD when shivaji was only 11 years old he mentioned himself as "RAJPUT" and caution that he will not bear any insult as he is a sesodia rajput.
Similarly these discussions fall flat with the discovery of "PERSIAN FIRMANS OR SANADS" the Firmans clearly remove all the dust from the history of the ancestors of this legendary warrior Shivaji Bhosle. Same old crying that these firmans are spurious are similar to allegations of "VINOD KAMBLI THAT 1996 SEMI FINAL WAS FIXED HE THINK SO BECAUSE THAT LOSS AFFECTED HIM IT COST HIM HIS PLACE IN THE TEAM" similarly the so called "JADUNATH SARKAR WHO CLAIM 91 KALMI BAKHAR TO BE WORK OF 1680S even though it has so many errors that its impossible that a man writing about shivaji so near to his living era will commit so many mistakes further it mentions Peshwa Daftar and Names of Raja Pratapsinji Bhosle of Tanjore which clearly proves that this work belong to post 1750AD and not 1680-1690. This man will now try to raise doubt on firmans further firmans were released in 1931 that is more than 80 years before and at that time "SHIVAJI ANTI-RAJPUT ORIGIN SCHOLARS" took the challenge to unearth the truth what happened to that.
Therefore dont try to impress the innocent readers that "LOCAL BRAHMINS DOUBTED HIS ANCESTRY" this is fabrication of "JADUNATH SARKAR" on the basis of 1750-1760 work 91-qalmi bakhar which is too late work to be considered.
According to below books Bhonsle link to sisodia is madeup and has no basis.
The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Economy By Chetan Ghate
Journal of Historical Research, Volume 34 / Department of History, Ranchi University., 1994 https://books.google.com/books?id=wA9DAAAAYAAJ&q=Bhonsle+Shudras&dq=Bhonsle+Shudras&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBGoVChMI6PfAsZnwyAIVAddjCh2eKwm_
From Bharata to India: The Rape of Chrysee By M. K. Agarwal
- That is probably true. However, the article doesn't say that they are of Sisodia origin. It says that they claimed Sisodia origin, which is a fact - and one important enough to be mentioned. The article also states that scholars such as Jadunath Sarkar consider this a fabrication. You can expand that part by adding content from the above references.
- By the way, From Bharata to India... by M. K. Agarwal is not a reliable source at all. It's a self-published book full of fringe theories and pseudo-history. utcursch | talk 02:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)