Talk:Chauhan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / History (Rated Stub-class, Mid-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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.

Chauhans are of Suryavansh or Solar Kshatriya Lineage[edit]

There have been well documented inscriptional proofs and other historical writings which clearly describes Chauhans as Kshatriyas of Suryavanshi Lineage. All the rubbish crap and myths propagated by Bhandarkar and other colonial historians regarding the Gujjara Origin of Agnikula Clans have been broken several times by many renowned historians backed by these inscriptions. We request you to add this the views of these historians such as C V Vaid as well as the inscriptional proofs which proves Chauhans as Suryanshi or Solar race.

I am adding the phrase of C V Vaids research which clearly describes Chauhans as Solar Race of First Aryan Settlers in India

"From the Harsha stone inscription it appears that the Chahamanas in the tenth century A D. believed themselves to be of the solar race. The same fact appears from many other records which we have already noticed. Even to late as 1400 A.D. when the Hammira Kavya was composed the same belief pre-vailed. The story given in this poem about the origin of the Chahmana family and then next seat of power viz., Ajmer with its Pushkara lake is as follows:

  • ' Brahma once formed a plan of performing a sacrifice and as he was moving in the sky to look for and settle upon a suitable spot, the lotus in his hand fell on the earth and etlie spot became known as lotus or Pushkara. Brahma performed a sacrifice there and a order to

protect the sacrifice the sun created named named Chahmana"

This legend explains at one throw why there is Brahmadeva’s solitary temple in India at Pushkar. why the lake was called Pushkar and how the solar race Kshatnyas the Chauhans came to rule over the land. But the story also proves that the different legends about the origins of the founders of this family are all imaginary, each poet being at liberty to frame a story of his own. Any bow it is certain that Chaud Bardai story of the fire origin of the Chahmanas was imaginary; in fact, as we have shown that he himself treated it as such and did not mean that these Kshatriyas were new creations. The Chahmanas. therefore, must be treated as solar race Kshatriyas or of the first raceAryan invaders of India, though their descendants in modern times believes themselves to be fire-born."

I will give several more inscriptional evidences and historical researches which proves Chauhans were treated as a Solar Kshatriya race before and after chand bardai composed imaginary Prithvi Raj raso fire origin myth. I request you to please add that chauhans originally belong to solar race.

Link for the researche of Doctor C V Vaida "https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-tkdmVaeZwiT1d3LU90VXFNdFU/view?pref=2&pli=1"

Regards

what about chauhan gurjars???????[edit]

"Chauhan is the word derived from Chahamana which in Sanskrit stands for "Char man" which means the person who is respected by people of all four directions and who can rule to be the best in all. chauhan gurjar is found in saharanpur and delhi and ajmer,bundi ,sawaimadhopur then y nt rajput founds in this area? y there are hundreds of village of tomar/tanwar gurjar y nt rajput?? stop manipulating history cowards specaily @situs these are districts where chauhans were having ruled dear , dont manipulate history even except chanderbardai all history says prithviraj chauahn was frm gurjar ethnic group , chauhan are originaly gurjars http://books.google.co.in/books?id=DfZBc1Gy9g4C&pg=PA185&dq=chauhan+gujjar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QHTiU4uYHcuWuATgx4JA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=chauhan%20gujjar&f=false

How poor is your knowledge is and i am impressed by the degree of fakeness in it.. Well Chauhans were originally from Ahichitrapura area which has been identified by the several scholars as the Moradabad Saharanpur bijanor Sambhal Area of Uttar Prades where Khaki and Rajput Both Chauhans exists till today.. it is the most dense Chauhan population found anywhere in the world were chauhan is treated as a caste as well as Rajput. check out the caste wise census records in the british gazetteers .. The Total Population of only Chauhans in Uttar Pradesh is more than the total population of all the Gurjar Gotra in UP.. Please do not spoil this article with your Gujjar shitt.. !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.14.175.71 (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

COFI ANAND CHAUHAN RULES[edit]

“The Chauhans or Chahamana are a clan who ruled parts of northern India in the Middle Ages. The Chauhan gotra is found among the Jats, Rajputs, and Gujars.”


Revision as of 01:49, 8 May 2006 by ImpuMozhi (Talk | contribs)

“ The Chauhans or Chahamana are a Rajput clan who ruled parts of northern India in the Middle Ages.”


Dear Impuhozhi.

The previous version is more neutral.

The Chauhan are indeed found in all three groups, the Jats, the Gujars and the rajputs. The Rajput identity is late identity is nowhere found before 12t-13thh century AD, though much effort is made to connect it to an ancient time line. Then too ,a very cursory research will show, it only comes into some notice, with the Islamic invasions on 14th/15th century, and is glorified by the British colonialists, starting with their agent James Todd, who wrote a book’ Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan”

The Jats, the Gujars are a much older people, and there is plenty of evidence that the Rajput feudal class arose from a variety of sources- local Bhils, Gonds, Gujars, Jats, etc.

The essential difference was that the Rajput class was monarchial/feudal in nature, supported by the ‘church’- the priests; much feudalism arose and took hold, as it in, in medieval Europe.


There has been plenty of discussion o this in the Yahoo Jathistory group, which I suggest you visit and join.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/

All are welcome to join. The archives are public, the files section requires membership.

You should also look for and read Joon's book- History of the Jats- which is on line, in the files section

It has chapter of the Rajput and the their origins, which will give you a bit of an insight.

You may find it educative to search the archives, The Chauhan/Chahman/Vatsa connection has been discussed in some detail

See for example :

Vatsa Jats- Chauhan http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/2923


Agnivansh:

I am deleting the portion below:

“The Agnivanshis were said to have been created by the Gods from a sacrificial fire in order to protect righteousness on earth.”

This is a another self serving legend. The evidence, see Joon, Dahiya, etc, points to the cause as the revival of the noveau Hinduism, and its four fold caste system. There were plenty of clashes between those who chose to follow the noveau Hindu religion, and those who followed Buddhism, Jainism or Vedicism, in contrast to the ritual dominated religion Hinduism was to become. The noveau hindu religion supported and was supported by Monarchism, and Feudalism, while the others were supported by Republican democratic societies.


I would be hesitant before making such sweeping statements like “”the agnivanshis were created Gods from a sacrificial fire in order to protect righteousness on earth.””


I am reverting the edits reversion made by you.

Please discuss this in some detail before you making these kind of reverts


Ravi Chaudhary 01:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Ravi Bhai,

These Rajputs are writing crap, they are including all the Gujjar (Deepe, Dawre and Kalsyane chauhans) villages as Rajput villages. They must realise that there are more than 1200 villages of Gujjar Chauhans with the banks of Yamuna (delhi, Up and MP).

Apart from that, Nothing has been written about the origin of Chuahans, If you read my article at allempires I have clearly written the origin of Chauhans. These Rajputs are on row of misinformation campaign, they wont let the readers know about the true history of India. Thats why they call the period of Gurjars as the dark period of India. (600 AD to 1200 AD).

What a silly attempt of these guys to assign gujjar history in favour of Rajputs, realy funny, they must now realise that history can not be changed like this.


Regards

Ashok Harsana freewebtown.com/ashokharsana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokharsana (talkcontribs) 09:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Chauhans are only found in Rajputs. There have been many other groups/cast who have started using brahmin/kshatriya surname for there applause. But originally Chauhan are known only in Rajputs. chauhan is largest clan in gujjars http://books.google.co.in/books?id=-aw3hRAX_DgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=prithviraj+chauhan+was+gujjar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=auZ0VMq-KoGhugSMkIKgCw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

RAJPUT CHAUHAN[edit]

I am shocked to see this page. Chauhans are an entirely Rajput community and the Gujjars and Jats merely Claim descent from the Chauhan rajputs. this page seems to suggest that rajputs are secondary and Chauhans are actually Jats and Gujjars.

Ranajhala (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ranajhala that Chauhan is primarily known as a Rajput community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.118.215 (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It may please be noted that while Chauhan is most famous as a royal Rajput clan, this surname is used by many other communities who have traditionally had or claimed a connection with Chauhan Rajputs including Ror, Banjarra, Gadia Lohar and many other such communities of varying significance in Gujerat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana.

It is always the case that the ordinary people and classes love to acquire names and mores of rulers and social superiors.

Additionally Chavan or Chavhan is the way this name is written and pronounced in Maharashtra where they are considered Marathas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.118.215 (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Dhangar[edit]

Dhangar are a clan of jats. They are not a separate ethnic group.

They are also found in the Gujars. They may be found in the rajputs as well.

Tara's edit can stand.

Ravi Chaudhary 19:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Chavan - Chauhan[edit]

Hi I believe both mean same thing. Any ideas??--Darrendeng 06:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


These are two totally different names, castes and origins.

Gorkhali (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agnivansha[edit]

There is a discussion going on about origin of Agnivansha on Talk page of Agnivansha. May like to see if someting comes out.

Talk:Agnivansha

--burdak 08:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC) NO These words are same chvhan is in maharastra like in north INDIA we say police and in maharastra we say poolice.

origin[edit]

For the user who is removing references claiming that they are false.The footnote "According to a number of scholars, the Agnikula clans were originally Gurjaras" is at page 280 which is not part of the preview.See here to confirm it and in 2nd reference it's explicitly written "By that marriage Haarsha had contracted an alliance with the dominant race of the Gurjaras, of whom the chohans were a prominent clan". Thank you Mkrestin (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mainlly chauhan and DURAPTI OF MAHABHARAT we born from a fire .by saurabh chauhan 9911012073.there is 14 village in CHAUHAN JAT in BAGPAT
Chahmanas were always termed as Rajputs from begining. This conspiracy is bullshit.
Every now and then Chauhan was always used by Rajputs only. Now if some backward cast people have started using this surname Chauhan with there name can't be termed as Rajputs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.25.253 (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
chauhan are originaly gurjar of agniwasnh here is the evidence
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dl1uAAAAMAAJ&q=how+gurjar+became+rajput&dq=how+gurjar+became+rajput&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x4jJU-_tJIigugSblIDYDQ&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kggochar (talkcontribs) 20:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
prithviraj chauahan was also gurjar rajput here is the evidence pls add this to the page
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=39tW7k_0MI4C&pg=PA79&dq=how+gurjar+became+rajput&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x4jJU-_tJIigugSblIDYDQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=how%20gurjar%20became%20rajput&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kggochar (talkcontribs) 20:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi @Kggochar:, your first source does not say that they were originally Gurjar of the Agnivanshi dynasty. In fact, since the Agnivanshi dynasty is a Rajput mythological construct, it wouldn't make much sense if it did. I've not even bothered reading your second source because it is not reliable - it is published by iUniverse, who basically print anything that anyone wants to say. As such, it is a self-published source and not acceptable on Wikipedia in this context. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
see this aslo tells that rajput are of gurjar origin dear http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t_PpdZosif4C&pg=PA27&dq=how+gurjar+became+rajput&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-ZDJU8vgO4bg8AX844DQAw&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=how%20gurjar%20became%20rajput&f=false and second evidence of AGNIKULA IS http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dl1uAAAAMAAJ&q=how+gurjar+became+rajput&dq=how+gurjar+became+rajput&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-ZDJU8vgO4bg8AX844DQAw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBg PLS READ THESE STUFFS ,
@Kggochar:, there are a couple of problems with your latest links, the second of which is also in your first message above. The most obvious problem is that neither mentions the Chauhans. In addition, the claims of Gurjars preceding Rajputs are based on the discredited work of scientific racists of the British Raj period and on totally unreliable romantics like James Tod. Those invasion theories have been debunked time and again since first being published and are today promoted mostly by people who have an interest in asserting the superiority of Gurjars over Rajputs. In addition, there is considerable academic debate regarding whether or not the Gurjara-Pratiharas are indeed precursors of the present-day Gurjar caste or in fact a completely different group - a situation that mirrors, for example, debates regarding the ancient Abhira tribe and the modern day Ahirs, and the ancient Yadavas and modern day Yadavs.
Wikipedia articles should be neutral and this means we should reflect opinions stated in reliable sources, with those opinions being weighted according to their prevalence. Umpteen past discussions on this talk page have looked into the Chauhan Gurjar claim and they have without exception involved synthesis of sources, which is something that we are not allowed to do and is something that you are doing here. For example, you are saying that because your first link suggests Rajputs sprung from Gurjars that means Chauhans were Gurjars. Your source does not make that connection: it neither says that Chauhans were Rajput nor that they were Gurjar. Indeed, our article at present also doesn't say either; instead, it merely recounts a Rajput bardic tradition that has been documented by a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

lition @Sitush: ,actually you dont wants you show the real history to the viewers becouse i think you are also a rajput community member , chauhan's are not different from gurjar-pratihar and it has been prooved by several historians that gurjar pratihars were gujjar by caste , prithviraj chauhan was married to anang pal tanwar of delhi and today also there are 30 oldest villages of tanwar (tomar ) gurjars where are the rajputs??? i am givinng you some more references even than also you dont wants to edit it than i am going to complain against you http://books.google.co.in/books?id=qM6kW9ZRMRkC&pg=PA313&dq=chauhan+gujjar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QHTiU4uYHcuWuATgx4JA&ved=0CEEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=chauhan%20gujjar&f=false and http://books.google.co.in/booksid=vRwS6FmS2g0C&pg=PA232&dq=chauhan+gujjar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QHTiU4uYHcuWuATgx4JA&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=chauhan%20gujjar&f=false and http://books.google.co.in/books?id=DfZBc1Gy9g4C&pg=PA185&dq=chauhan+gujjar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QHTiU4uYHcuWuATgx4JA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=chauhan%20gujjar&f=false all chauhans are gujjars http://books.google.co.in/books?id=-aw3hRAX_DgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=prithviraj+chauhan+was+gujjar&hl=en&sa=X&ei=auZ0VMq-KoGhugSMkIKgCw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

rajput[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

123456789 Dilbaghbeawar123 (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dilbaghbeawar123, 24 January 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} something is missing in article

Dilbaghbeawar123 (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. You need to state exactly what is missing, what needs to be added, and any sources if needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC) they are also found in village zarar, karamtar, sonari in deoria distt of up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.223.111 (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

August 2011[edit]

Would ask the one to come for discussion not being into rigid menality of editing the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.246.146 (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what that means. Wikipedia isn't actually interested in the "truth"; rather, we care about what is verifiable in reliable sources. The former is a guess, an approximation, something about which people will argue indefinitely; the latter is simply a matter of looking and seeing what the sources said (and, of course, weighing the quality of the sources and their relative importance). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


Would recommend you to read this.... An article from GOI only on the "corruption of surnames" from rajput/Brahman to other castes...

http://www.youthforequality.com/must-read/caste%20census%20A%20dangerous%20agenda.doc

Hope it clears the doubt.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.246.96 (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Beginning cleanup=[edit]

I've just gone ahead and removed most of the history section--everything unsourced, or sourced to James Tod (who has been determined to not be a reliable source per WP:RS) was removed. I'm concerned about the heavy reliance on James Burgess as well, because that also seems like exactly the kind of work that has typically been heavily questioned. We need reliable, modern research, not the words of a random colonizer who just repeated various mythological ideas (and was probably highly influenced by local groups xe was closely connected to). I'm going to inquire elsewhere. Also, note that I am going to remove the other sections that are unsourced (like the Diaspore in India section) soon if no sources are found; that information has been unsourced for months, has implications for living people, and is ultimately too detailed for a WP article anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Rajputs[edit]

The Kingdom is known for "Chauhan Rajputs" in all books... So Dynasty and Kingdom are known for RAJPUT CHAUHAN.. It is prooved.. Even if some theory defer from there actual origin to some other cast which can be debated.. But kingdoms were of RAJPUTS.. Since there descendents today are Rajputs...

Would ask editors to put forth there view.. And not to edit with rigidness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.25.91 (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your claim is contradictory--you say that "all books" call them "Chauhan Rajputs", but then you recognize that there are other "theories". In fact, our article itself has several sources that include them in other castes. Sorry to be "rigid", but Wikipedia policies require that, in cases where real world sources disagree about a fact, that we include all due opinions. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


Gurjar is about origin.. which is in debate.. As any other cast in rest of world can't be called with Adam and Eve.. But in present scenario they are Rajputs.. Prithviraj Chauhan was called as Rajput in his time.. But theory of origin may defer..

Let me know your point of view..?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.97.186 (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reference stating that all Chahuan are now Rajput. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

They are termed as rajputs for your reference: Source: http://www.rajputsamaj.com/Surname.aspx

Also please refer to Dhanetiya and Nirwan clan who are descendents of Chauhan Rajputs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Rajputs#Sikh_Rajput_Clans

Chauhan Rajputs are one among in Punjab.

http://rajputcanada.com/history.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.156.159 (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is being vandalized everyday.The fact is that the clan is found in multiple castes even today.About the origin of chauhans, many historians such as VA Smith has shown that they were originally clan of Gurjars.According to a mythical story they born out of fire, which is also mentioned in the origin section.Some IPs regularly removing Gurjar origin version which is fully cited and they are adding community forums as sources.I request some admin to take care of it and restore the sourced content.thank you Mkrestin (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Some IPs are regularly putting the content According to a number of scholars, the agnikula clan was subdivision of Suryawanshi,[1][2][3].These sources have nothing to do with chauhans.First reference] is a community forum, not reliable for WP articles.Second and third references are directly copied from Gurjar article and back up for Gurjars claim of Suryavansh.None of these sources say about chauhan's suryavansh claim.If there are sources for suryavansh claim of Chauhans then that can also be mentioned in origin section.Chauhans as Gurjara clan is referenced so it should not be removed.Thank you Mkrestin (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Chauhan are Agnikula who are suryavanshi. The other theory defies Chauhan claim of gurjar who are Suryavanshi signifies that "Chauhan are suryavanshi from descent". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.25.160 (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources, please. Nothing goes in the article without reliable sources. Since a lot of the sources being added recently do not meet WP:RS, or are being made to say something that is not in the sources, provide the sources here first, so that they can be reviewed. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


Check source 6: "http://books.google.com/books?id=KYLpvaKJIMEC&pg=PA142#v=onepage&q&f=false" Medieval Indian literature: an anthology, Volume 2

By Ayyappappanikkar, Sahitya Akademi

which clearly says Prithviraj Raso is the most important and popular work. The beleif of authors that "The historicity of Prithviraj Raso was proved unreliable by historical writers like Buhler, Morrison, GH Ojha and Munshi Devi Prasad" is wrongly prooved in later part from the same volume which is sourced.

Even it is been clearly mentioned that "Prithviraj had killed Gori by shabdbhediban vidya" thru below content and author has not even taken Raso as source. "Legends from Indian historyBy A. K. Ghosh, http://books.google.com/books?id=M3et5EypA_4C&pg=PA40&dq=prithviraj+shabd&hl=en&ei=zJWCTpbNAuuTiAe3lKTvDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=prithviraj%20shabd&f=false" But this also is been completely igonred.

This is serious issue of selective extract to prove there view point of defaming.

And since gurjar are claimed as suryavanshi why to not add that content. which signifies that agnikula is another branch of suryavanshi as prooved.

Let me know your view point. This is serious issue of selective reading according to own interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.246.236 (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Chauhan are suryvanshi descent:"Rāmadatta Śarmā (1985). Image of society, as depicted in Sanskrit mahākāvyas. Ritu Publishers. http://books.google.com/books?id=W1ZuAAAAMAAJ. Retrieved 28 September 2011." Here is correctly mentioned thru inscriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.246.236 (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

One more account suggests Chouhan of solar descent "Ranthambhore beyond tigers, http://books.google.com/books?id=cwrbAAAAMAAJ&q=agnikula+suryavanshi&dq=agnikula+suryavanshi&hl=en&ei=vPSDTq-OLoOzrAeHko26DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=5&ved=0CEMQ6wEwBDgK" It is clearly mentioned that the chouhan are said to belong to solar race.

Entire Agnikulas descended from solar(suryanvansh) or lunar (chandravansh) "Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay , Volume 26, http://books.google.com/books?id=iIMFAAAAMAAJ&q=agnikula+solar&dq=agnikula+solar&hl=en&ei=JPaDTt6tB8rQrQfuqtC6DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=2&ved=0CEAQ6wEwAQ" Chauhan the fourth clan rajputs are said in the records to the solar-race Kshatriya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.246.236 (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Suryavansh claim by some chauhan inscriptions has already been added in origin section.

About Prithviraj Raso, Historians doubt the historical authenticity of it.If you have references which say that prithviraj raso is authentic and reliable work as far as historicity is concerned, then we can surely add that too.The source you provided doesn't say that Raso is considered authentic historical work.The source only says that it's important and popular work but the same source questions the historicity of it.There are many sources which clearly mention that Raso is not considered reliable work by historians.See followings:


Thank you Mkrestin (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Chauhan are undoubtdly suryawanshi. Its the case of selective reading "Chauhan even if related to gurjar are suryavanshi since gurjar are termed as suryawanshi, And Agnikula is more related to Suryavansh and Chandravansh. So Chauhan claim to suryavansh(branch of Agnikula) rather Gurjar is more relaible and authentic.

The article where i said 'At last Prithviraj killed Ghori by shabdbhediban vidya" is amply prooved leave aside Prithivraj Raso, the attached earlier source are not backed by Raso either.114.143.97.186 (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly do you want?All theories related to chauhan's origin e.g. Gurjar, agnikul, suryavansh are mentioned in the origin section of the article.

About Raso, if you have sources saying that it's considered reliable for historical purpose, then those can definitely be added to article but that doesn't mean that you remove counter views.On wikipedia, we keep all views if they are backed up with reliable sources.The story that Prithviraj killed ghori by his Shabd Vidya is taken from Prithviraj raso only.See hereThank you Mkrestin (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


It is not the case of what is mentioned. It is the case how it is mentioned and what content is reliable. The major point which is extracted here is "Chauhan are agnikula origin, Agnikula are basically either descent of solar line or lunar line, in this Chauhan are suryavansh descent. Gurjar who are related to Chauhan are descent of suryavansh(solar line), which amply prooves Chauhan as suryavansh is only genuine and extracted fact".

Regarding Prithviraj killed Gori is clearly mentioned below: Refer this ""Legends from Indian historyBy A. K. Ghosh, http://books.google.com/books?id=M3et5EypA_4C&pg=PA40&dq=prithviraj+shabd&hl=en&ei=zJWCTpbNAuuTiAe3lKTvDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=prithviraj%20shabd&f=false" It is no where mentioned as RASO.

Regarding Raso: it is clearly mentioned in the book sourced by the author Ayyappappanikkar, Sahitya Akademi, here author himself say that Prithviraj raso is the most important and popular work. Here he mentioned the name of other authors who dont consider it relaible but this author himself claim to say that RASO is important because it contains certain statement of Chand which are sufficiently old. This author himself prooved the relaibilty of RASO against the other author opinion quoting the example of other epic writer Muni jin Vijay. Just read the below link provided by you:"^ Ayyappappanikkar; Sahitya Akademi (1 January 1997). Medieval Indian literature: an anthology. Sahitya Akademi. pp. 142–. ISBN 978-81-260-0365-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=KYLpvaKJIMEC&pg=PA142. Retrieved 28 September 2011." 123.238.25.243 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Some more of noble author who have mentioned that Prithviraj had killed ghori by Shabdbhedi ban vidya. Many are mentioned below, these authors have not questioned this fact and not even to raso:

India partitioned: the other face of freedom, Volume 1 "http://books.google.com/books?ei=vbGETprIMcfWrQeyqvj0DA&ct=book-thumbnail&id=Zr_eAAAAMAAJ&dq=prithviraj+archery&q=archery#search_anchor"

Existential Encounters

By S. Sunder Das

"http://books.google.com/books?id=55p8eGGnXHoC&pg=PA108&dq=prithviraj+archery&hl=en&ei=T66ETrbvC47RrQex8_XSDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=3&ved=0CD0Q6wEwAg#v=onepage&q=raso&f=false"

Social Sci. (History) 7 (Rev.)

By Consulting Editor - KV Nandini Reddy

"http://books.google.com/books?id=5qkVLVpJmyoC&pg=PA10&dq=prithviraj+archery&hl=en&ei=T66ETrbvC47RrQex8_XSDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=2&ved=0CDgQ6wEwAQ#v=onepage&q=prithviraj%20archery&f=false"

Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes of India

By B.S. Nijjar

"http://books.google.com/books?id=xQM9voN21ekC&pg=PA292&dq=prithviraj+archery&hl=en&ei=T66ETrbvC47RrQex8_XSDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=4&ved=0CEIQ6wEwAw#v=onepage&q=raso&f=false"


Hope moderators and neutral person can judge the view point and take the required action.123.238.25.243 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

About origin:according to a number of scholars chauhan was originally a gurjar clan is fully sourced.According to other reference some accounts also relate them with suryavansh, which is also mentioned.If you want to keep only suryavansh version and remove other version than that's not going to happen as wikipedia doesn't work the way one wants.On wikipedia, all views are kept if they are sourced. Same goes for the second issue also.There are two versions in this case too.According to raso ghori was killed by prithviraj, however others argue that ghori killed prithviraj, check it.These both version can be mentioned in article.For example take the reference you provided [1]In section a legend of that period it mentions how Prithviraj killed ghori with help of chandbardai but further in section "battle of tarain" it says that ghori deafeated prithviraj in second battle (1192) and Ghori returned back to defetat jaichandra in 1194.Thank youMkrestin (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Mkrestin is correct here. If there are multiple theories, and those theories are not WP:FRINGE, we must show them all. One specific point from above: You say " Prithviraj Raso is the most important and popular work" according to [2]. Actually, no, that's not what it says. It says, "A few of the works of this period, we now find in modified form. Out of them Prithiviraj Raso is the most important and popular work." That is, Prithiviraj Raso is the most important of the "now modified works of this period". That's quite a narrow definition, thus the book doesn't establish what you want (i.e., that sources which do not consult Prithiviraj Raso are not reliable).
I don't have the time or interest to read through every single detail above. I hope the two of you can work out the issue. But I am very concerned that 1) IP is misreading sources; 2) IP has already tried adding unreliable sources to the article; and 3) IP seems to not be understanding that Wikipedia must include all viewpoints that have a significant following in the real world. THis is an absolute requirement, listed in WP:NPOV, one of our core policies. The only time we ever say "Only this one theory is true" is where all other theories are completely dismissed by reliable scholars. That does not seem to be the case here. Note that this talk page is not the place to argue about what is "correct" or "true", only to argue about what sources say. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


""About origin:according to a number of scholars chauhan was originally a gurjar clan is fully sourced.According to other reference some accounts also relate them with suryavansh, which is also mentioned.If you want to keep only suryavansh version and remove other version than that's not going to happen as wikipedia doesn't work the way one wants.""

That is the reason Gurjar origin to suryavansh was added in the article (which is even prooved). But it was removed.

""You say " Prithviraj Raso is the most important and popular work" according to [2]. Actually, no, that's not what it says. It says, "A few of the works of this period, we now find in modified form. Out of them Prithiviraj Raso is the most important and popular work." That is, Prithiviraj Raso is the most important of the "now modified works of this period".""

I have clearly stated above "that Prithviraj killed Gori by shabdbhedi ban vidya" it is been sourced above with 5-6 relaible links. It was never sourced by RASO. Raso sources should be removed ,since RASO is in doubt. But killing of Gori by Prithviraj is been sourced and should be added apart from the RASO part. I too agree.

Chears now 123.238.25.243 (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

First, please learn how to indent your comments. All you have to do is add colons (:) at the front of each paragraph you add to a talk page--you should add one more colon than the person before you. This makes it much easier to follow who is saying what.
Second, I think I'm confused, and maybe there are more editors here than I think there are. Are you only trying to add information, or are you also removing other information? Because I thought that you weren't just adding details, but also removing other ones. Could you please write a copy of what you want added to the article, here? Don't copy the whole article, just the additional sentences/paragraphs, and state where they should go. If you want to also remove content, please state which content should be removed, and why. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Gurjar are descent from suryavansh (solar line) this can be added in origin part.

2. In the beginning of the article, Prithviraj killed Ghori by shabdbhedi ban vidya is already added, sources from RASO/ and any part from RASO should be removed since these are in doubt. It should be sourced only with the others books such as mentioned above by "Existential Encounters By S. Sunder Das", "Social Sci. (History) 7 (Rev.) By Consulting Editor - KV Nandini Reddy".

Chears.123.238.25.243 (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.In this case, you can't just combine chauhan's origin from gurjars and gurjars claim of suryavansh to imply chauhan's claim to suryvansh.However you can just mention that Gurjar claims suryavansh descent and not remove other theories as far as they are backed up with reliable sources.I have no objection of addition of gurjar's claim of suryavansh but don't tamper with other sourced content.Mkrestin (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Secondly , The version which says prithviraj killed ghori is taken from Raso only.Let us consider the sources you provided:

(:)

If Chandbardai has helped Prithviraj in killing Ghori(which is mentioned in the book), that doesn't mean the part is extracted from Raso, since even Chandbardai got killed after that.

Regarding the origin part, i have already stated to add the gurjar claim to suryavansh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.186.142 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Forget Raso, the version which says Prithviraj killed Ghori is not supported historically.check this The above story is, however, not treated as historical fact.There were two wars between ghori and prithviraj at tarain, one in 1191 in which prithviraj won and the other one in 1192 in which ghori deafeated prithviraj and killed him.Ghori was killed in 1206.Check,History of India By N. Jayapalan.Thank youMkrestin (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC

You only started with RASO, noone else. Don't get diverted from your own topic. Now Prithviraj killed Ghori is amply prooved in the above sourced books by shabdbhedi ban vidya. Moreover even today, there still lies the grave of Ghori and Prithviraj, and even today Afghans vent there anger on Prthviraj's grave since prithviraj killed Ghori, so they stamp prithviraj's grave to reach till ghori's grave. Sourced by many Newshours and relaible sources

"http://books.google.com/books?ei=AxGGTp2JHIirrAflieHwDA&ct=book-thumbnail&id=4XksAAAAYAAJ&dq=ghori+prithviraj+grave&q=grave#search_anchor" by C. Chari for Perspective Publications, 2006 - Literary Criticism.

A news article:

"http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-8-2005_pg4_20"

"http://hindu.com/2000/09/26/stories/14262186.htm"220.224.246.12 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not diverting from anything.I just mentioned that there are sources which don't accept the version of prithviraj killing Ghori.You can add any content backed up with reliable sources but 'don't remove the content which is referenced.Also go through the article Ghori, you will know how he was killed.Thank youMkrestin (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So i guess here is the conclusion: 1. Gurjar claim to suryavansh to be added in origin part. 2. Raso/"Raso sources" to be removed from main page. Theories to be added i.e "Prithviraj killing Ghori by Shabdbhedi ban vidya", also mentioning the grave details of prithviraj and Ghori(duly mentioned with sources to be added). Ghori died in 1206 can also be added. 123.238.25.8 (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

2.This point can be added by taking both versions.e..g According to one view Prithviraj killed Ghori by 'Shabdbhedi ban vidya.However some scholars don't accept this story as historical fact.They believe that Ghori killed prithviraj after deafeating him in the second battle of Tarain, [3], [4].The book “Arms and Armour: Traditional Weapons of India” by E Jaiwant Paul says that there is ‘grave’ of Prithviraj in Afghanistan which is visited by the locals even today to vent their anger for killing Muhammed Ghori.Mkrestin (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

For 2 lets remove the disputed part. According to one of the view Prithviraj killed Ghori by Shabdbhedi ban vidya[5]. There is one more theory which suggests Ghori killed prithviraj after deafeating him in the second battle of Tarain, [6], [7]. The book “Arms and Armour: Traditional Weapons of India” by E Jaiwant Paul says that there is ‘grave’ of Prithviraj in Afghanistan which is visited by the locals even today to vent their anger for killing Muhammed Ghori. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.247.13 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ In reality Agnivanshi rajputs are also a sub-division of Suryavanshi, http://www.kshatriyasociety.com/origin.html
  2. ^ Kamal Prashad Sharma (1997). Costumes and ornaments of Chamba. ISBN 9788173870675.  Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Lālatā Prasāda Pāṇḍeya (1971). Sun-worship in ancient India. Motilal Banarasidass. p. 245. 

Samantas[edit]

It is not necessary to list every single samanta, and especially so when the source appears possibly to be dubious. List three or four, with decent sources and preferably after creating an article for those people in order to assert their notability. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the samantas mentioned are uncited. Let just name all the samantas atleast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.156.16 (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. And please do not keep adding this information back as it appears not to comply with policy. You may wish to read WP:BRD also. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

You need to read the comments mentioned above in discussion page between the period of 28-Sep-11 to 4-Oct-11. You will get the conclusion there for recent editing. Add your points there upon before doing the editing directly, every point mentioned earlier was 1st discussed. So better discuss and then edit. Article needs to be first restored to the version of Qwyrxian dated 4-Nov-11 to move forward. Thnks

Yes, I did read it and actually watched the saga unfold at the time. As Qwryxian said, there are concerns that, "1) IP is misreading sources; 2) IP has already tried adding unreliable sources to the article; and 3) IP seems to not be understanding that Wikipedia must include all viewpoints that have a significant following in the real world". - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ohh.. So quiet a selective reading to suit to own belief. Mostly books of famous authors are sourced. Telling that those are unreliable is a definite case of being misquoting them. Lets not have vague generalization. Let me know which are are unreliable in those mentioned and on what basis. Before that proof reliability of Authors of your books too to comment further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.156.16 (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am actually struggling to understand what you are saying now. Are you referring to the samanta issue or the Prithi issue? The former is a sourcing & notability problem, the latter is quite simply POV, undue weight and puffery. You cannot keep returning here every few months and reinstating rubbish. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The edits that Sitush is making seem, at least at first glance, to be correct here. This goal of WP articles is not to list every single piece of information tangentially connected to the subject. Second, I can't find any evidence that the book by K.Devi Singh Mandawa actually exists--no mention of it in Google Books, Google Scholar, or anywhere on the web besides WP and Jatland, neither of which verify anything. We need to know a lot more about that publication before making half of the article rely on it. Second, you removed sourced text. Third, you never addressed my original concerns about misreading sources and using unreliable sources. So, at this point the responsibility lies on you (IP) to explain here 1) why those sources are reliable, 2) what is wrong with the sourced information you're removing, and 3) why you think we should lisst every single samranta. While Wikipedia says that we have to assume good faith, when repeated past actions have been found to not meet WP standards, then we no longer have to just trust you're doing the right thing when you make new edits. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Darn it! Yet again, someone says it better than me. I apologise for not expressing my thoughts with the clarity that Qwyrxian has done. There may be good cause for the disputed material, but I feel that it needs quite a lot of additional support. Jatland, by the way, is often a mirror of Wikipedia content, and vice versa. It is an unreliable source because it is (or was, when I last looked) an open wiki. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
You sure know how to sweet talk a lady. Or guy. Or whatever I am :). In any event, I concur on Jatland--usually it's either a mirror of wiki, or else someone tries to mirror jatland here, both of which are, well, bad. As far as I can tell, they also have no requirements like WP:V or WP:RS, so I don't trust anything from there unless I can see the original sources (if there are any). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


Lets take point by point: "Horace Arthur Rose, an administrator during the British Raj, believe that the Chauhan clan was a Rajput community but other commentators have noted them as being of Gurjar origin." The above mentioned need not to be in introduction part since it is already there in origin part. In origin part it is also mentioned that Chauhan being agnivanshi are of suryavanshi origin. Putting up just single point that chauhan are of gurjar origin is disputed to be put in introduction. let it remain there in origin similar to earlier case. Adding prithviraj Chauhan as Rajput king may not need any reference, but can be provided here if asked?.. Moreover Chauhan are also found in Jats which is repeatedly being removed for unjustified reasons in introduction part.

Justify the points before.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.156.16 (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Leads summarise article content and if both the article and the lead are well written then there is not usually a need for citations in the latter. However, what should never be in the lead is unsubstantiated or POV material based on selective use of sources: we have to present all non-fringe points of view, they have to be verifiable and they have to be balanced. Highlighting one person in the lead is scarcely balanced, and especially not when there has been past dispute about the point being made. This article needs a lot of work but it keeps getting disrupted by pov pushers: as long as that goes on, I will keep clearing it out. If you want to contribute in a neutral manner, with good sources and otherwise in compliance with policy etc then feel free, but I can tell you now that at least three people have already commented that your Prithviraj contribution looks prima facie to be POV (me, Qwryxian and the protecting admin, on his own talk page). If you have problems with this specific point then perhaps your best venue would be WP:NPOVN, where a wider range of opinion might be found. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Similarly, you have said yourself that the Samanta stuff is unsuitable in the form that it was last presented. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


Sitush Where is the issue in the sourced information. Lets discuss before you remove any part which is unncesarry vandalism.

Please read over WP:Vandalism, which is not taking place here. Calabe1992 18:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, lets encourage discussion first then removal of any information. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.25.3 (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I already tried that when I said

It is not enough to add sources: they need to be reliable sources for the statement that they are supporting. The ones that you have added recently to Chauhan are not so. The links that you have amended are unnecessarily complicating things, while adding them to the Rajput category is clearly against received wisdom (only H A Rose believes that). On top of all this, you introduced a completely unnecessary peacock term. All of this is why I reverted your edits, sorry.

on your talk page here. You carried on reverting etc & the style of your contributions are very similar to those of another IP that was warring recently and who is discussed further up this section, ie: User:123.237.156.16.

What is it that you do not understand about neutrality, fringe theories and reliable sources? Why do you think that a book about, for example, costume, is a good source to support a statement that the Chauhans were of this or that mythological lineage? Would you not agree that a book written by an anthropologist or an academic with specialism in Indian mythology, or something similar would be far more reliable? - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


Lets go point by point. Agnikula are Suryavanshi descent which is another branch of Rajput which need not be qouted to H A Rose theory. There are ample proves listed where the Chauhans are majorly a Rajput clan. Recent added sources of kotah and Sirohi has got 10-15 sources listed in it. Don't brag your own theory. Chauhan enjoy the status of being the most respected rajput clan in India which need not be sources but still 100 of soucrces are available and even provided. Dont just go by own theory. I have added gurjar claim to suryavansh to broadly categories agnikula and gurjar into suryavanshi still you removed it. I request you read the sources quoted with in the links as well. Please don't deliberately try to change the fact with narrow vision. rest about the identity you need not be worried.. First think of facts provided. Dont create your own theory here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.25.3 (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You are being presumptuous here. I do not have a theory, and the citations that you added were not suitable. It is not my responsibility to read your mind, ie: to work out that you were using one (poor) source to provide a list of (what you believe are better) sources. That is not the way we do things here. WP:BURDEN might be worth a read, along with the other links that I have already provided. You may yet get temporarily blocked from editing for breaching the three revert rule, of which you were warned, but that would hopefully provide you with a bit of time to read through the various linked items. I am happy to assist you in understanding things but not if you are going to be aggressive both in your edits to articles and your comments on talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. That is the reason, i requested to read the sources. You need not read the mind. Let me know a single source which says "Chauhan are not Rajput" in the sources mentioned, please note these theories are related to origin and which need not mixed with identity. Also please note Chauhan are called rajputs in present day india. The article/sources which i have quoted are referred to the princely stated at the time independence of India in 1947. Again request you read and qoute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.25.3 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No. The burden is on you to provide adequate sources, not for me to ferret around for the things. Nor is it my responsibility to prove a negative, ie: "Chauhan are not Rajput". - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
OK. That is better.. Than you need not remove it either you if can't comment for discussion to proceed.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.25.3 (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
You are not getting it, are you? Please read WP:BURDEN - this is the third time that I have linked to it here in the space of an hour or so. I can and will remove anything that is poorly sourced. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


Why Category of Rajput Clan removed[edit]

May i know the reason why category of rajput clan is removed ? Chauhan are known as one of the celebrated rajput clan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.252.203 (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


Below Sources of identity of Chauhan Rajputs: 1.Imperial gazetteer of India: provincial series, Volume 12 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=xQC2AAAAIAAJ&q=chauhan+rajput&dq=chauhan+rajput&hl=en&ei=DX8QT8PFGpDJrAebhej1AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CD8Q6wEwAA

2.The golden book of India: a genealogical and biographical dictionary of the ...

By Sir Roper Lethbridge

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=7iOsNUZ2MXgC&pg=PA254&dq=chauhan+rajput&hl=en&ei=DX8QT8PFGpDJrAebhej1AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=4&ved=0CE8Q6wEwAw#v=onepage&q=chauhan%20rajput&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.252.203 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are not great sources - they are ancient and their writers believed what they were told by Rose, James Tod etc. Effectively, they are tertiary sources and this is not good. We need a modern source that unequivocally makes the statement. Please revert your latest contribution unless you can provide such a thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The author in the 2nd source has referred to the present princely state(after 1947, Independence year of India) who claim to descent from Chauhan Rajput. These are relaible sources. Let me know the other definition of relaible source here.Amantalwar88 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


1 more source where in the fights of rajputs and muslim invaders is referred. In praise of death: history and poetry in medieval Marwar (South Asia)

By Janet Kamphorst

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=z6eR2CX_zbsC&pg=PA190&dq=chauhan+rajput&hl=en&ei=DX8QT8PFGpDJrAebhej1AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=10&ved=0CHEQ6wEwCQ#v=onepage&q=chauhan%20rajput&f=false.Amantalwar88 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what page you are referring to in Lethbridge - you will have to let me know. Kamphorst isn't bad: it would probably do as verification that there were Chauhan Rajputs, although perhaps not that all Chauhans were Rajput? I'll see if I can progress this at all - there may be other mentions in there.
Now, if we have verification of the Rajput thing, where is Gurjar going to fit in? Could they be both, as some groups certainly are? - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

In Lethbridge refer page 254.

Further, you need to understand the structure of Indian society in that case. One surname can be found in many sub groups. Anways, all princely states as stated were of Chauhan Rajputs precisely (more details in page 254 and the 1st source Imperial gazetteer of India: provincial series, Volume 12), proves can further be provided ahead. Let Gurjar part remain there till its disputed/unresolved. The theories referred in your sources mostly denote Chauhan origin unlike the present status. Let origin part remain to be a part of discussion.Amantalwar88 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the page number - will take a look. I know more about the structure of Indian society than you apparently think. My concern is how we deal with it in the context of Wikipedia, bearing in mind the fundamental requirement of verifiability. It is not sufficient to know. Example: I have just found a (not great) source that says Karve thought that the Gurjar tribe assimilated itself in the Chauhan community. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What you said can only be done with the available sources now and if needed can be further more provided for verifiability. Since even you are aware of Indian society structure further discussion can make this article better. Thanks..Amantalwar88 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


Sitush what you saying is mostly to the theories related to origin. let me try my best to explain you

Lets keep 2 points separate as following:

1.Origin of chauhan Rajput which mean RAJA PUTRA in Hindi(Sanskrit) which means Son of King. Since Chauhan were kings(RAJA) hence there descendant were termed as Rajput. Now coming to the point related to gurjar assimilation. The undisputed theory is of Agnikula which is said as another branch of Suryavanshi Rajput. There are sources which even says that even Gurjar were Suryavanshi Rajput. So by these 2 theories and with qouted sources Chauhan are basically termed for Rajput Clan.

2. Present Princely status of Chauhan As mentioned in sources earlier and even the present princely state they are of Chauhan Rajput descent(refer Page 196 of Imperial gazetteer of India: provincial series, Volume 12) which says the chief of Chauhan Rajput of Raghugarh family. Further more sources can be provide here, which even can be seen mentioned on this Talk page from some unknown users.

Thanks..Amantalwar88 (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of the Sanskrit etymology, beliefs of mythological origin etc. However, we have to show all non-fringe theories with a suitable balance. We can neither pick one over another nor overly emphasise one compared to another. That is why we need to nail this: once we have got a decent range of reliable sources then we can judge how much weight is given to the various theories. This is precisely the sort of thing that I was referring to earlier when I said that "My concern is how we deal with it in the context of Wikipedia ..." - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


Fine, Lets source every point made and keep both the theories of Rajput and Gurjar in origin part.

And for princely state case, lets take the claim in books/sources being made which says Chauhan of Rajput descent. Hope you would agree.

We can modify even the origin part by just removing the disputed part of HA Rose and even we can add gurjar claim to Suryanashi Rajput in the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amantalwar88 (talkcontribs) 20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Hari Singh Deora in Notable Chauhan[edit]

User:Sitush I'am mentioning the quote from internal link of Hari Singh Deora, which explains this by Brig. Hari Singh was married to Shyama Kumari. They had three children, Nisha Kumari, Anju Kumari and Jayendra Singh, and seven grandchildren. His father was Colonel Samarath Singhi Ji, s/o Shri Malamsingh famous jagirdar of th.Galathani,n via Sumerpur Distt-Pali marwar Rajastan Colonel Samarath Singh was guardian to His Highness of Sirohi State (Mount Abu) Shri Tej Singh was guardian to Maharana Bhagwat Singh of Udaipur state. His elder brother Thakur Shri Kesari Singgh Ji was guardian to Maharaja Hanwant Singh of Jodhpur Marwar State. This says he was royal descent from Deora family which is branch of Chauhan clan of Sirohi. Let me know the clarification needed or if needed source for deora origin to chauhan clan can further be provided.123.238.25.235 (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That entire article needs sourcing properly. We need a source that says that he was a Chauhan, not anyone else. Forget trying to link the Deora name - it is not acceptable, period. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree if that article needs sourcing, but Deora are Chauhan only. My main purpose is to convey that he is royal Deora(Chauhan) descent. Would you need sources for Deora in Sirohi as Chauhan descent, then this link can be referred (Page 51, Chiefs and leading families in Rajputana By C. S. Bayley). It is link No.5 in the article page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.25.235 (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi User:Sitush, Please comment for any confusion and clarification, based on that we can decide to add him in Notable Chauhan's column. Thanks.220.224.246.18 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
You can repeat yourself as often as you wish but that name is not going in this article without reliable sources to provide verifiability. You might be right about Deora but you are wrong here: we have policies and you must abide by them. A guardian is not necessarily a member of a family. - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Gaurdian ??? How can a direct descent is called a gaurdian, its a direct lienage. Lets please have concrete comment. Sources are given here. Please comment how it is not related. This needs to get added now.120.62.170.206 (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Try reading it. Singh's father was guardian to somebody; Singh had children. Neither of those statements make him of royal descent. Furthermore, that entire quoted passage is unsourced and therefore invalid. Im fact, I am going to go over there and remove it. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Burgess is a dubious source[edit]

We are citing James Burgess, ie: "By James Burgess - Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland , The Indian antiquary, Volume 1, page 275". This is a really old, somewhat amateurish publication that dealt mainly in issues relating to folklore etc. It was, for example, a haunt of William Crooke. I have tagged the citations as being dubious and would appreciate some explanation of why we should consider it to be a reliable source. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Rajput/Gurjar origins[edit]

Not for the first time, we have someone, who seems to claim an affinity to the Chauhan community, trying to claim Gurjar origin for that community. This issue has been discussed time and again here. Each time, the discussion is chaotic for some very basic reasons:

  • people do not indent their posts (as a general rule, add one more colon (:) at the start of your message than was used in the previous message)
  • people write "walls of text" that become unwieldy and incomprehensible (see WP:TLDR)
  • people either do not provide means of verification or, if they do so, provide ones that often fail our basic policies (eg: WP:RS)

Let's have one more attempt at fixing this problem, calmly, politely and with due regard to my three points above. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate comments relating to this edit. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, the scholars from the beginning of the 20th century are, as always, basically useless. The 1975 one talks about Agnikulas, not Chauhan, and it appears the only connection to Chauhan are the bardic tales, which of course, are not reliable sources. Any chance we could just remove the entire Origins section? Is any of that reliable? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, though, it was wrong of the IP to call the edit vandalism when reverting, as it clearly does not fall under the WP definition of that term as explained in WP:VANDAL. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your analysis of the sources used in the diff and, of course, with the comment concerning the "vandalism" removal by the IP. I've subsequently discovered that the original contributor was copy/pasting without attribution, variously from Rajput and either List of Gurjars or Gurjar. See WP:Copying within Wikipedia for how this should be done.

I have little personal interest in "Origins" sections of articles such as this, which usually consist mostly of mythology, but I do think that they have their place because they are clearly important to many people, hence the frequently seen warring etc. In this particular article, the section content is rather poor but perhaps something will come of this discussion. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

According to a number of scholars, the Agnikula clans were originally Gurjaras" is at page 280 which is not part of the preview.See here to confirm it and in 2nd reference it's explicitly written "By that marriage Haarsha had contracted an alliance with the dominant race of the Gurjaras, of whom the chohans were a prominent clan". Thank you

This article is being vandalized everyday.The fact is that the clan is found in multiple castes even today.About the origin of chauhans, many historians such as VA Smith has shown that they were originally clan of Gurjars.According to a mythical story they born out of fire, which is also mentioned in the origin section.Some IPs regularly removing Gurjar origin version which is fully cited and they are adding community forums as sources.I request some admin to take care of it and restore the sourced content.thank you

About origin:according to a number of scholars chauhan was originally a gurjar clan is fully sourced. This is a conspiracy of some ip's who are not showing d real history rather..taking credit of veer gujjars.17:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauhan1192 (talkcontribs)

This needs to be re looked above where clearly it is said/proved/evidenced that Gurjar is larger entity of Suryavanshi Rajput(kshatriya) All these dots were already connected and supported by many.. These all reference provided by you are old or rather repetitive and dismissive.. Even Chauhan claim of Suryavansh Rajput are mentioned the same time.. Hence gurjar origin is all perpetuated.. For the same reason it is clearly written in origin cloumn that "whereas in context Chauhan are suryavanshi Rajput, agnikula being their subdivision".220.224.246.187 (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Have either of you, Chauhan1192 and 220.224.246.187, even bothered to read the first message in this thread? Calm down and start over, please. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
CHauhuan1192, that expanded quote does help explain things (not enough to re-add to the article, but it's a start). Which source is that from? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, let me add to that: could you please state the source, and provide a paragraph or so of context for the claim? It's very very important to understand the nature of the surrounding material. If it's easier, scan and upload the page somewhere and direct us to it. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, I agree with Qwryxian, in particular because where I am sat, I can see absolutely nothing of the 1975 source, not even snippet view. I am copying what follows from a message that I posted at Talk:Rajput.

I propose to use Gupta, R. K.; Bakshi, S. R., eds. (2008). Studies In Indian History: Rajasthan Through The Ages: The Heritage Of Rajputs. 1. Sarup & Sons. ISBN 9788176258418.  as a source for this article. The editors appear to be academic historians and this volume (part of a five volume set) has been cited in journals, eg: this one. It is also shown in university course reading lists. I would not usually ask, as this seems to be a no-brainer, but given the contentiousness of matters Rajput, has anyone got objections to its use?

Obviously, some of what that message says applies to this article also, so I would appreciate comments on the validity of the source. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Sitush's source looks very good in principle. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou Sir 4 ur advice once again..in punjabi rajputs u hv reverted the sourced books edit but..it confirms that during british era only rajput word came into existance..Please look... The origin of Rajputs is the subject of debate. According to John Keay, not until the Mughal period, which began in 1526 AD, did the word "Rajput" come to be used of a particular class or tribe.[1] The later rulers during british..(called rajputs)..helped british..dats why british wrote in favour of them.. And if the book/source/references r saying ...Rajas and Kshatriyas,not satisfied with their married wives,had frequently children by their female slaves,who although not legitimate successors to the throne,these illegitimate children were styled Rajpoots,or the children of Rajas[2]"The word "Rajput" is used in certain parts of Rajasthan to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or jagirdars" [Mahajan: 1972: 550 ff.] The conclusion is obvious that they were not considered by the original residents[3] to be respectable, to start with. This is because "Raaja" means royal but "Raj" means semen......then HOW COULD Chauhans be rajput...it is well written in books/people knows/references says...

According to a number of scholars, the Chauhans were originally Gurjaras (or Gurjars)[4][5][6]

lots of many Chauhans claim them 2 be Gujjar only in north india...These Rajputs are writing crap, they are including all the Gujjars (Deepe, Dawre and Kalsyane chauhans) villages as Rajput villages in d talk page.. They must realise that there are more than 1200 villages of Gujjar Chauhans with the banks of Yamuna (delhi, Up and MP)NORTH INDIA AND CENTRAL INDIA.....everybody knows Chauhans r Gurjars.. PLEASE reinstate d ref/sources in Chauhan article..becoz it is definite Prithiviraj Chauhan was a gujjar of chohan clan of Gurjars..at dat time..d word rajput was not even known Sir.Thanks Please do d needful.Thankyou

Books includes....The Rajas and Kshatriyas,not satisfied with their married wives,had frequently children by their female slaves,who although not legitimate successors to the throne,these illegitimate children were styled Rajpoots,or the children of Rajas[1]"The word "Rajput" is used in certain parts of Rajasthan to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or jagirdars" [Mahajan: 1972: 550 ff.] The conclusion is obvious that they were not considered by the original residents[2] to be respectable, to start with. This is because "Raaja" means royal but "Raj" means semen.

It is a COMMON SENSE dat if..not until the Mughal period, which began in 1526 AD, did the word "Rajput" come to be used of a particular caste or tribe or class..[1] The later rulers during british..(called rajputs)..helped british..dats why british wrote in favour of them. then how could Chauhans of 1192 CE belongs to a very recent caste called rajput...It is clearly indicated in books dat Pratihara(Gujjar pratihar,Chauhans sisodia etc) belongs to Suryavanshi Gurjars n Agnivanshi Gurjaras. Look 4 sources in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujjar and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurjara-Pratihara..Please reinstate the sources. I t is more than enough evidences.thakyouChauhan1192 (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The princely states governed by India who had privy purses until independence were with mostly of Rajputs and some of Jats.. Gujjars today are in Scheduled cast with backward status where as Rathore, Chauhan, Sisodia are known in entire India as Rajputs, the ruling class of many states.. In India there are/were many Chauhan Chief minister who were all Rajputs.. This all above written by fake Chauhan1192 is a complete crap with motive defamation and this should be stopped.. 123.238.25.181 (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


1.The Parmar are also from Gujjar stock. They ruled over Malwa region.This was one of the main ruling Gujjar clan who existed in 10th. century.

− 2.All the Pratihars are Gujjars only.(Present day there is Pratihar Gotra among Gujjars, All of them are 15th. century Gujjars only.

− 3. All the Chauhans are Gujjars only.. All of them are 15th. century Gujjars only.

− 5. Chapotkat (Chawra) was another Gujjar ruling clan.

− 4. Solanki are Gujjars only irrespective of their present day status.

− 5. All the guhilots are Gujjars only irrespective of their present day status.

− 6. The Chauhans and Guhilots were enjoying special status and seating place in the Darbars of Gurjar Pratihars and led many expeditions including the defeat of invading arabs and Pals from the east.

− 7. The grand mother of Prithviraj Chauhan was the daughter of Gujjar Solanki king Sidraj Solanki.His wife was of Gujjar Dhama gotra and is referred as Dhami in Delhi. The brothers of Dhami was Kadamwas (Kaimas) and khande Rao. It was Gujjar Khande Rao dhama who defeated Muhammad Ghori in the first battle between the two.

− 10. It was the Jodhpur branch( who ruled over Malwa region also) out of the various Gujjar kingdoms like Gujjar Chauhans, Gujjar Solankis, Gujjar Parmars,Gujjar Chawras, Gujjar Tanwars etc. who got the title of Pratihars i,e. the protector of India from Arab invaders. The first title was given to Nagbahtta. The Mihir Bhoja the great was the grandson of NagBhatta.a GUJJAR.

− 11. The Rastrakuts (the present day rathors) were jealous of Gujjars and just after the great defeat of arabs in the hands of Nagbhatta attacked Gujjar kingdoms and the lease of land given to Parmars and Solankis Gujjars by Nagbhatta were taken back from them during the reign of the father of Mihir Bhoja the great. The status of these Gujjars king were restored during the reign of Mihir Bhoj. The Rastrakuts also used to insult the Gujjar overlords by putting the statue of Gujjar Kings in the front of the gate. This was done for Nagabhatta the Great by Rastrakut Dantidurg and later the Jaichand, the traitor, for Prithviraj Chauhan in the swamwar of sanyogita, but his own daughter preferred a Gujjar Chauhan Prathviraj Chauhan and selected him her husband by garlanded his statue.12. The fact many people are not aware that none of direct descendants of Prithviraj Chauhan is Hindu today and they are all Muslims Gujjars.

− − − The following information shall be enough to resolve these issues and can be placed at WIKI.

− − 1. Rajpoot , though were son of kings, were not legitimate to rule. ( Ref: The History of the Rise of Mohammedan Power in India, Volume 1, chpt. 8 .

− − 2. The same writer has also written in the same work about the natural son of Prathviraja Chauhan who was made governor of Ranthambore by Kutibudin Aibak, a slave of Ghori who himself was appaointed the Governor of India by his lord. Hence the dispute can be only arised from this time onwards and this can be taken as confirmation of the fact that all the Chauhan rulers were Gujjars by birth till the time of Mughals. Obviously,Prithviraja Chauhan was a gujjar.

− − 3. All these Celebrated Gotra like like Chauhans, Parmars, Tanwars, Solankis,Chandella etc. etc are the main gotras ( clans) found among Gujjars in numbers from Afghanistan to India even today and at the same time were feudatory kings(Clans) of Gujjar Pratihars by inheritance.

− − It is a COMMON SENSE dat if..not until the Mughal period, which began in 1526 AD, did the word "Rajput" come to be used of a particular caste or tribe or class..[1] The later rulers during british..(called rajputs)..helped british..dats why british wrote in favour of them. then how could Chauhans of 1192 CE belongs to a very recent caste called rajput...It is clearly indicated in books dat Pratihara(Gujjar pratihar,Chauhans sisodia etc) belongs to Suryavanshi Gurjars n Agnivanshi Gurjaras.

− − − Please see how the notable scholar John Keay in has addressed this issue in his book -India: A History.

− − 4. The noted scholar has also resolved these issues by finding the bugs inserted by Col. Todd and Briggs. In the history of India.

References are as follows:Page 196: How the Gujjar History was stolen:

− − for the British, 'Rajputana'.

− The word even achieved a retrospective authenticity when, in an 1829 translation of Ferista's history of early Islamic India, John Briggs discarded the pharse 'Indian princes,' as rendered in Dows;s earlier version, and substituted 'Rajpoot princes'. As Briggs freely admitted, he was much indebted for the unreserved communications on all points connected with the history of rajpootana..... to my friend Colonel Tod.

− − − Rajput are spreading more misinformation by stealing Gurjar/Gujjars/Gurjaras/Gurjara pratiharas history and presenting it as theirs. Even in international media like Discovery chanel And History chanel

− ,Rajpoot are shown as " Indian Warriors Called Kshatriya" ,such a blesphemy .Wikipedia has been now sabotaged for this propaganda and they are presenting themselves as only vedic dynasty and they have locked the wiki articles on gurjars after posting their delibrate conspired theoreical crap such as Gurjar came from cental asia and are foreigners ;that is, they are smacking their history on us. Its confirmed that they are of scythian stock from central asia who came here after being disposed by arabs and mongols .Now they are also claiming that Harsh Vardhan (Harshan=Harsana) was their king by posting some idiotic mismatch of criss-crossed confusion and fabrication .They also deleted names of great gurjar personalities from list in gurjar articles and instead added them in their list as rajput .Its they who have been waging their tails like pet dogs for mughals for 400 years and then for british until independence .All they did up to this time was to laze off in alcohal and women and now they show more proof of their dirty mentality by stealing Gurjar history by bribing britisher(big shitter) historians and Indian historians.

− − − And when the british came, instead of fighting them ,they welcomed them and entertained them .British have been saying that rajpoots were their puppets all the while and they helped 20000 british occupy a land of 20 times more population by assisting them in battles against Indian kings.Now after british have gone they are againg decieving the Indian nation by bribing the historians to put them in good light and show them as patriots while most of them are traitors

− − − Gurjar Vansh is the confedration of all the various real and true vedic kshatriya clans of solar and lunar lineages and their branches from the end of mahabharat times, this only explains their having more than 1200 clans and population spread accross all the northern sub continent progenated from 5000+ years ;not like rajpoots who barely have 36 clans(some clans are gujjars) so far devepod only in last 300 years or less;

− and they say in their fabricated versions of puranas that they arose to annihilate buddhism and save brahmins ( they seem to have forgot that Harsh was buddhist) . Which kshatriya will annihilate one Indian religion for another Indian religion ? here they seem more like arabs than kshatriya. All they did was to betray their kings to foreign invaders in course of thousand years and grab their kingdoms and afterwards FORGE fictious vanshavali/lineage histories to legtimize their claims . Its they who betrayed us to mughals and to british ;nobody else.They say they're Rama descendents ; where were they when the historians were denouncing Kusha(Shri Rama Chandra'son) descendents i.e. Kushans as some non aryan tribes from central asia.

− For experienced persons ,the shortcomming of internet are well known and Wikipedia is already as lying propaganda tool for rajputs because they controll it,edit it.more advanced than other castes(gujjars etc),constantly misleading d readers everywhere to hide their recent betrayel history of 300 years..earliest from 16th century/Mughal period. and China because they constantly monitor and filter it.But for a novice and everyone in general around the world wikipedia like internet databases are primary sources for getting information and knowledge about us.So its of utter and imediate importance that dat Sir..Plz administrators n you reinstate all my edits sofar.

− − − Sisodia, the major clan of Mewar since Maharana HAMIR SINGH I (1326-1364). Prior to that, since Guhil (569-586) founded the dynasty, the original Guhilot family ruled Mewar. However, in the 12th century, Chittor came under attack and the Mewar capital was relocated at AHAR. It was during this period that there was a FAMILY SPLIT. For reasons unknown, the breakaway occurred possibly towards the end of the reign of Rawal KARAN (RAN) SINGH I (1158-1168). Two of his sons, Mahap and Rahap, quit Ahar, possibly in anger that another son, KSHEM SINGH had been declared Karan's heir. Mahap established a small, independent kingdom at Dungarpur. Rahap defeated Mokal, the Parihara Prince of Mandor at SISODA. He established a junior branch of the Guhilot family at Sisoda, naming his clan Sisodias after the town, and taking the title of 'Rana'.http://www.mewarindia.com/ency/ran.html5.

− − The Title Rana belonged to only Imperial gujaras and the chiefs related with blood used to be called as Rana of Salumbar, Rana of Nagraha, but within the imperial Gurjars it was fondly as saloombra (The Rana of salumbar), Nagdi (Nagri and now a days written as Nagar) (The rana of Nagda).

− −

− There were and are people who willingly distorted Gurjar history because Gurjars never allowed submissive behavour and resited and retaliated every move of the enemy. There was time particularly after Mohd Ghaznavi when Gurjars were loosing control over the political map of India. Zealous of Gurjars behavour and courage, some other castes spied for Muslim invaders and even to Britishers and every move of Gujrars against these foreigners, were discussed in the enemy camps. Because these anti-Gurjar people wanted to grab the Gurjar lands. There is one example : A Gurjar (khatana gotra) south of Delhi caught an Firiangi (english man) and engaged him whole day in the field during summer season. In the evening a Rajput saw and requested to Khatana Gurjar to release that Gora Saheb. That English man went straight to Delhi and reported the matter. Next day whole land of 5 khatana villages were registered in the name of that Rajput. During the passage of time these gurjars got their land only in exchange of money. There are several stories like this. It is true that politically and economically Gurjars are far behind of Rajputs and Brahims. The word Rajput first used in 16th century during Mughal era because of their matrimonial alliance with Akbar. Rajpoot , were not legitimate to rule. ( Ref: The History of the Rise of Mohammedan Power in India, Volume 1, chpt. 8 . But during recent years the wrong propaganda through Media/wiki etc these people succedded in misleading d readers. Gurjars fought for the country and got nothing. Treacherous people are ruling this country. Alas!! Gurjars are nowhere in the modern history written by treaterous people of India. This is like the story of Prithviraja Chauhan Gujjar and Mohd Ghori and Ghanavi.

The Rajput gentleman was a kind hearted person.That is why he told the Gujars to stop torturing the British officer.The British officer was a sort of prisoner of war.Anyways, every Indian is patriotic and nationalist.Nobody is anti_national.Jat, Gujar,Rajput,Ahir,Maratha,Brahmin, vaish, Shudra ETC. everyone is patriotic.The British were better than muslims because the British did not humiliate the Indian people by forcing them to make matrimonial alliances.That is why the Rajputs sided with the British.Also, the Maratha, Jat and sikh empires were exercising oppression on the Rajputs.That is another reason they sided with the British.The Sikhs had taken away the lands and titles from the muslim Rajputs of northern Punjab.So, naturally when the British came, they sided with the British and got some of their lands and titles back.
Rajputs (Razbut) and Thakurs (takur) and Jats (Zott) have been mentioned by the Arab historians in Sindh, in the 8th century A.D.So, the terms Rajput and Thakur were already in existence before the arabs set foot in Sindh in the 8th century A.D.Xuan zang has mentioned that King Harsha Vardhna preferred to call himself king,s son (Rajaputra), rather than maharaja (great king) or maharajadiraja (king of kings).This proves that Rajput was a respectable title otherwise why would Harsha vardhna call himself Rajaputra.The titles Rajaputra and Thakur must have been in existence for several centuries before the coming of the a Arabs to Sindh. Rajbaz (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

− −

− − The main Gujjar Gotras are Pratihars,Solankis, Chauhans ,Chawras, Chandellas and Tanwar, Dhama, etc. and others are their branches and sub branches.

− − Sir,.just want to say Plz support bcoz by supporting..you will support human race/ground reality/correct history.Chauhan1192 (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:TLDR, WP:SYN and WP:OR. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It took this much time to crook up..??.. This all is rubbished.. Now why are gurjars asking for backward status today..?? Rajputs never asked for it.. The truth is whatever gurjars are/were known as just cultivators... But the kings were termed as Rajputs(RAJA-PUTRA which means son of King)... Hence for the same reason from past Chauhan, Sisodia(Gehlot) are termed as rulers and rajputs(even the oldest of Prithviraj Raso in Udaipur library confirms this) unlike gurjar who are asking for scheduled caste status... Now even if these gurjars start illegitimate use of rulers' surnames, it won't help.... 123.238.25.228 (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh Astarābādī Firishtah (1829). History of the rise of the Mahomedan power in India: till the year A.D. 1612. Printed for Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green. pp. 64–. Retrieved 15 February 2011. 
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Jamanadas was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Ex-Member of Parliament from Bijnaur Sanjay singh Chauhan and Ex-Justice of Supreme Court BS Chauhan are Gurjars. Why cant we add into the article that Chauhans are/ were found in Gurjars and Jats also. The most reverend Gurjar Diety 'Devnarayan was a Chauhan and so were the famous Rajasthani bagdawats The Real Rana (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

=MISINTERPRETATION OF THE TERM GURJARA_PRATIHARA[edit]

The misinterpretation of the term Gurjara_Pratihara has caused lot of controversy.In his INDIA_A HISTORY, John Keay says on page 203, "In the Punjab the Shahis jostled with the Gurjaras, Kashmiris and Sindhi rivals, sometimes as allies, sometimes as enemies".Here, John Keay is clearly using The term Gurjara along with Kashmir and Sindh in a geographical sense.There is no doubt that there was a country called Gurjara_desha. In my opinion, Gurjara is short form of Gurjara-desha.Rajput tribal names have been borrowed almost by every Indian caste.Rajbaz (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Since that source does not say there was a country called that, then we can't include that information. Wikipedia is not based on editors opinions, but on reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


In the national anthem of India, the term Gurjara is being used for Gujrat state, in a geographical sense.Check it out on the internet or ask someone.Rajbaz (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
"Check it out on the internet or ask someone" is not a Reliable source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 September 2012[edit]

Vansh - Suryavanshi $007$ (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC) All the given information is wrong .

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Chauhans are dispersed in 1500 around delhi from the time of prithvi raj chauhan,,, Chauhans are prominent caste in politics and defence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandybanna (talkcontribs) 17:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

We can only add information that is verified by reliable sources. If you know of such sources, please present them and we can see if addition is warranted. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Myth[edit]

The Agnivansh origins are a myth. The sources actually say that but I toned their statements down a little. Therefore, there is no reason for this edit, which also introduces an unreliable source of the British Raj period. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering the present tittle which seems to be just put to highlight myth theory needs to be modified according to consensus with discussion which would adjust all the theories.. We are to provide exact info not to propogate the myth theories by tryoing to identify/describe the closest opinion by prooves.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.224.246.89 (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Find a reliable source that provides a theory other than the mythological one and we can include it. This will be in addition to the one that is already in place, unless of course your source is so strong that it actually blows the whole Agnivanshi idea out of the water. If it does, then we should remove all references to a Chauhan connection with Rajput/Agnivanshi etc across the entire of English Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected[edit]

We seem to have a concerted effort by various IPs to add "Gujjar" to the infobox title, despite the clear instruction "Do not add any castes/clans into this title, because the article clearly states that they fall into multiple groups". Looking back over recent article history, I can see only one IP edit this year that has not been reverted, so I don't think we're going to lose a great deal by prohibiting anonymous editing for a while. As the article has attracted trouble and has been protected a number of times before, I have imposed semi-protection for six months this time. If any anonymous editors want to make changes, please request them on this talk page - with appropriate sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I have today semiprotected the article for one year. As before, request changes here if you're unable to edit the article. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC).

sitush is biased for chauhan gurjars. chauhan fell in multiple castes,then why he is showing rajput claim!!!which is based on mythology not reality. according to the wiki Policy..if dere r 2 views regarding origin n both r fully sourced..then HAVE to mentioned the both.thanx.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauhan1192 (talkcontribs) 12:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Only if the source is reliable. Not any old source. Vincent Smith was a proponent of the discredited invasion theory that was dreamed up by the Raj to bolster their position. Find a modern source, please. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Surname[edit]

@Sitush: Is Chauhan a caste? Is Chauhan an endogamous unit?? Absolutely No. Chauhans belongs to Rajput caste in India and Chhetri caste in Nepal. They marry within Kshatriya groups. Thus it is a Kshatri clan and surname. Airkeeper (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

One day, perhaps, you will get round to reading WP:V and WP:OR. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Origin of The "Chauhans" of Poonch Distrct, Kashmir?[edit]

I belong to the Rawlakot, Azad Kashmir region. My Cast is Chauhan, as told by my relatives. Few years ago, I saw some documents held by Village Accountant (Patwari), where my Great grandfather's ethnicity was mentioned as Gojar.

My Y-DNA haplogroup is R2a and mtDNA haplogroup is U7 What could be the origin of my family tree (ancestry)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomanrasheed (talkcontribs) 23:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)