Talk:Pratihara dynasty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Hi, I've corrected some grammatical errors and cleaned up the language a bit. Hope no one minds.

Thanks, T Servaia 14:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reg: Pratiharas of modern times

This article should keep it's scope to Pratihara kingdom, and should not be adding sections about new pratihara's. It goes against the purpose of this article. 86.96.226.88 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Title of the article

I undid the undiscussed move of the article from "Gurjara-Pratihara" to "Pratihar Rajputs". This article is about the empire -- not about the modern ethnic/social group (Parihars) claiming descent from the Imperial Pratiharas. The dynasty certainly did not use the self-designation "Parihar Rajputs" -- Google Books returns 0 results for Pratihar Rajput, 102 for Parihar Rajput, and 739 results for Gurjara-Pratiharas (ignoring hundreds of results for alternative spellings like "Gurjar-Pratiharas" etc.). At best, this can be moved to "Pratiharas" or "Pratihara dynasty" via a requested move. utcursch | talk 04:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Gurjara-Pratihara actually does mean Pratiharas of Gurjara desa or Gujrat. Sometime ago i was watching a programme on sky tv, on a Gujrati channel. The programme was called "Gurjar Ras". I think it means "Gujrat news". It was giving news about Gujrat state. Gurjar is actually short for Gujrat or Gurjara desa.There is district called Gojra in Pakistan. It means land of Gojars or Gujjars. But, not everyone living in Gojra belongs to Gujjar caste. These are just places named after some castes or people. Rajasthan was called Rajputana, but not everyone living in Rajputana was Rajput. The same goes for Gurjara Brahmins which means Brahmins of Gurjara desa or Gujrat. Hope that helps. Desimann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.121.200.192 (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Gurjara pratihara doesn't mean Pratihara of Gurjardesh but it means Pratihara of Gurjara people.This can be confirmed by the careful observation of razor inscription.The term Gurjar is used in 4th line again where it is used for racial purpose.Moreover Rastrakutta records also confirm that they were Gurjars by caste e.g. Bagmura plate of indra 111 use the term Roaring Gurjara.Obviously here Gurjara denotes clan not country.Arab writers also confirm that praiharas were imperial Gurjars.Parihar are still a clan among Gurjars.

Vist this link to know that they were no doubt Gurjars. regards Mkrestin (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sir, on page 278 it says that "the Cedi king defeated kings of Vangala, Kasmira and Gurjara". So, the word Gurjara does stand for Gujrat as a place or country and not as a caste. When using religion and caste or clan together, religion comes first and then caste or clan. For example,muslim rajput, muslim jat, muslim gujar. When using caste and clan together, clan or tribe comes first and then caste. For example, Bhati rajput,chauhan rajput,janjua rajput, Gorsi gujar ,kalas gujar,khatana gujar, Gondal jat, sidhu jat, maan jat. When using caste or clan belonging to a country, region or area then country , region and area comes first and then the caste or tribe. For example, Punjabi rajput , Sindhi rajput, rajasthani rajput, Majhil jat, Doaba jat, Punjabi jat , Sindhi jat, Punjabi gujar, Rajasthani gujar, Kashmiri gujar. So, Gurjara Pratihara means Gujrati Pratihara or Pratiharas of Gujrat. Sir i hope you do agree that there is a place called Gujrat or Gurjra desa. Desimann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.121.200.192 (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me after reading the comments on this page that there is quite a lot of misunderstanding about the word Gujjar. Actually this is name of a race that came to India from Gorgia of present Russia. They came around first century AD and mingled in existing Indian communities. They are mentioned here as Pratihara, I did not get any clue to the meaning of that epithet. By my study the meaning is doorkeeper. In "Advanced History of India-Mujumdar and others", on page 169 some mention is made and that I wish to put here as is given.

About the middle of 8th century A.D. certain Gurjar Chiefs are represented as serving 
a Rashtrakut monarch as Pratihara (doorkeeper) at a sacrifice performed at Ujjain. 
The designation probably originated in this way, though the later tradition connects
it with Lakshman, brother of Rama, 
who guarded the doors of the later during the years of his exile. And so the epithet 
Pratihara, real meanig by dictionary is attendant. 

I feel this etymology of this epithet should be introduced in the article at its introduction part. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It is looking clearly that some persons are trying to prove ' Pratihars ' as ' Gujjar ' on any cost . No doubt , V. Smith and some historians attached ' Pratihar ' with ' Gujjars ' who were of foreign origin without any doubt . V. Smith and other imperialist historian want to hunt two birds by one arrow -- first , provide a historical moral base for ' British rule ' and second to sow the seeds of division among Indian communities . Unfortunately , some Indian historian followed them blindly and Gujjars have made this as a question of their ' cast pride ' . They present ' Rajaur inscription ' and ' Jujra and Gurjar ' title as a proof in the favor of their claim . But they forget three basic facts --- 1-- There were three dynasties on the name of Gurjar - Pratiharas . First and oldest was of HARISHCHADRA Pratihar who was a Brahmin and established his kingdom at Bhillmal [Jodhpur] 550 a.d. approx . [ Ghatiyal inscription by SUGHCHHARAAJ ' the descender of Harischchandra brahmin pratihar dynasty ] Second was of DADDA 1 of Nandi puri ,who was present in the 575 a.d . Due to the time similarity of son of Harishchandra , R.C. Majumdaar and other expressed a possibility that this DADDA 1 was the son of Harishchandra . Though it is totally wrong , but if we accept this as a fact for one moment , then how we can declare Dadda as a Gujjar king or why Dadda himself and Huentsang declared Dadda as a Gurjar king ? Truth is that , Dadda 1 was gurjar king which had neither any relation with Harishchandra's Brahmin Pratihar dynasty nor with later Kshtriya Pratihar of Avanti .[ became famous as 36 kuli {Raj tarngini } and then ' Rajputs ]. Third dynasty was established by Naag Bhatt 1 [ 725 a.d. -- 750 a.d. ] who not only stopped Arabian invasion but uprooted ' Dadda's descender Jayabhatt 4 ' from NANDIPURI and established ' Bhatravaddha Chauhan ' on the place of Jayabhatta gujjar . If Naagbhatta were a gurjar , he would not have been displaced the Jayabhatta because ' Feudal order ' was totally based on ' Brotherhood or family members ' . 2--- Pratihar of Avanti or Ujjain never said in any OWN inscription like Gwalior inscription that they were Gurjars . Courtier poet of Mahendrapaal , ' Raaj Shekhara ' also never said that Pratihaar were Gujjars . These were Rashtrakuta and Arabians who used to call them Gurjara or Jujra because till that time Pratiharas had captured the ' GURJARATRA ' and it had become the center of power and shelter place till the permanent capturing of KANNAUJ . We should remember that there is a historical tradition to call casts and communities on the basis of places such as Gaud Brahmins and Gaud Kshtriyas on the name of GAUD [ Bengal ] , Gurjar Brahmins [ Brahmins of Gurjar desh ] etc. 3-- Where the question of Rajaur inscription is , we should remember that the meaning of language of this inscription was controversial and any one can check this with the help of NIRUKTA . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaudheya (talk • contribs) 06:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

All views regarding the origin of the dynasty including their being Gurjar or not, has been included with references.Views of scholars such as VA smith, RC Majumdar that the dynasty had Gurjar origin had been mentioned with the counter views of Dasrath Sharma.On wiki, various aspect/theories are covered with reliable sources, not the view of editor's like.Mkrestin (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sir Dashrath Sharma was not only one historian who rose the question of 'gurjar origin 'of Pratiharas . R.C.Majumdar himself was not definite about this . [ ref. Shrenya Yug '-- translation of Classical age ] . Beside this Pro. Bhandarkar also didn't accept the explanation of ' Gurjar pratiharanvaya of Rajor inscription . Beside this you should check the list of descenders of Harishchandra Dynasty of Jodhpur by GHATIYAL inscription .[ ref. -- Epigraphia indica by R.C.Majumdar vol. 18 pp 87 ff ] . Beside this you says that Harish chandra was the 'samant 'of Rashtrkutas while Harischandra's time was just after the decline of Gupt empire [ approx 550 a.d. approx -- according to R.C.Majumdaar ] and Rashtrakutas gained the power in initial of 8th century a.d. . So chronology of Pratihar kings is also incorrect .Please sir before conclusion , first reread carefully the basic inscriptions and views of other historians , specially about these three dynasties whose interlinking couldn't be proven . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaudheya (talk • contribs) 16:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC) yaudheya (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Yaudheya Ji!! On what basis are you claiming Harichandra line of Pratiharas as Brahmin.On page 222 of the book "History of Kannauj: To the Moslem Conquest" by Tripathi, it is clearly given that Harichandra was surnamed Rohilladdhi, which is very clearly a Ror Kshatriya signature. Again, one of the last surviving Pratiharas, who finds mention time and again in "Alha Khand" written by the Chandela bard, Mahal Si of Mahoba (forced later to shift to Uriyal fort by Parimal), is clearly defined as a Ror Kshatriya again by historian Dr. Raj Pal Singh. So, on what basis are you claiming that Harichandra was Brahmin?? Can you quote a single Brahmin surname from anywhere in India, which sound like Rohilladdhi or Rohadaddhi? Rorkadian (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Pratihara

Hi, I have changed word parihar with Pratihara, as there is no evidence in The Imperial Gazetteer of India as well The Digital South Asia Library-Imperial gazetteer of India. There is only Pratihara Dynasty belongs to rajput People. RebelRobin (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The Daddas

There is no connection shown between Dadda I-II-III and the Partiharas. I wonder why they are listed here at all. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have now removed them from template (of Gurjara-Pratihara kings). - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

These people were Rajputs

Before (yet again) changing the article to say that the Gurjara-Pratiharas were Gurjar, please read the cited sources. They are reliable and they make it clear that the people were in fact Rajput. Don't like it? Find some reliable sources that say otherwise and we can consider showing the alternate opinion, as per WP:NPOV. What you cannot do is base things on your own understanding. Many words have several meanings, and Gurjara is one of them. - Sitush (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Gurjara originally referred to an ethnic group, lending their name to the region called Gurjaradesa/Gurjaratra/al-Jurz, whose kings and forces were then referred to as "Gurjaras" by the rival kingdoms. Whether the Pratiharas were ethnic Gurjaras or not is still debated by the scholars. However, what is not in doubt is that they are classified under Rajputs, purely by virtue of the fact that they claimed a solar lineage. I am not sure why there is any controversy about it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hang around Rajput articles for long enough and you will see that there is an ongoing, long-term battle whereby people presumably from the Gurjar community attempt to usurp academic sources etc. There are dozens of indefinitely semi-protected articles because of this problem. - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the Gurjaras need their claim to fame too. I admit the article is one-sided. I will take care of it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Update on the Gurjara-Pratihara article

(Copied from User talk:Kautilya3)

Hi Kautilya, thanks for informing me about this. I have now provided three reliable references for my edit, I hope the matter is clear now. I would like to add that the name "Gurjara" in the compound Gurjara-Pratihara has the same meaning as "Gujjar", but evidently a lot of people, perhaps including you, dont realize this apparent connection; which is the whole reason I made this edit. Gurjara and Gujjar are the same words, and both are used for a people not a place. --Axtramedium (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Axtramedium: Discussions on the subject of articles are best kept on the article pages. So I copied your message here.

I will take a look at your sources. However, you should note that social phenomena are not like mathematics. So you can't say that "Gujjar" means the same as "Gurjara". So we can use them interchangeably. Such edits constitute synthesis which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please check that page for more information. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the edit. Given the disputed Gujjar/Rajput situation, it is highly inappropriate - per WP:NPOV - to make an overarching statement that they were definitely Gujjar. I'm not even sure that the lengthy quotations provided make that assertion: they seem to me to be pretty ambiguous about the context in which they are using the word.

Perhaps the information can be included somewhere in the body of the article but we need first to be absolutely clear about what those sources are saying. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush:I would like to ask you to point out what was "ambiguous" about those references, have you read them? As far as I know, all of them are clearly stating that Pratiharas were Gurjaras. Now as far as the word Gurjara goes, there is already a consensus among all historians that Gurjar and Gujjar are one and same people.--Axtramedium (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

already a consensus among all historians that Gurjar and Gujjar are one and same people Really? And is there also consensus that Gurjar and Gurjara are the same? Even one of your own sources said that there have been disputes, so the unequivocal assertion is inappropriate. Have you read WP:NPOV? - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I have already made a post on this controversy, if you want to talk about it, you are more than welcome to present your point of view. I have explained this matter in detail in that post. I believe its the first post on this page, hard to miss. Thanks!--Axtramedium (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR, and note that by convention you post at the top of this page was misplaced. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, so cut me some slack, lol. Regarding my post, I can provide references from reliable sources, this is not my original research. These are well established facts.

I dont know I thought the newest posts go at the top, should I copy it to the bottom? --Axtramedium (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No need to move it as far as I am concerned but the placement is why I didn't see it. WP:TPG provides some useful information about using talk page, although you're probably getting swamped by all these references to policies and guidelines.

We do indeed need references from reliable sources but in this instance I doubt it will make any difference. We already know that there are various spellings and that sources have come to different conclusions, so there is no way we can assert that one particular version is correct. That is why I suggested you read our approach to neutrality as explained at WP:NPOV. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Axtramedium: There are several issues here:

1. The so-called "Gurjara-Pratiharas" never called themselves by that name. They only used the term "Pratihara." Some scholars believe they were Gurjaras and some doin't. The "Origins" section of the article already covers this debate.
2. We have no clear idea what the term "Gurjara" meant in 800 AD. It could have been an ethnic group, or a country, or a generic term for the people of a country. There are enough scholars that believe in each of these ideas and multiple ones as well.
3. Assuming it was an ethnic group, we have no clear information about the descent of the present day "Gujjars" from that tribe. Things do change over time. Societies are not static. So even assuming that the Gurjara-Pratiharas were ethnic Gurjaras, it is still not proper to call them "Gujjars."

The sources you have added don't say anything new. The issues are still unsettled and perhaps they will alwaya remain unsettled. WP:NPOV says that we should cover all the scholarly views, but we can't present anything as fact unless there is clear scholarly consensus. In the case of Gurjara-Pratiharas, there is no scholarly consensus on their origin and ethnicity. I hope that is clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

See the page Nagabhata I, which documents my research into the issue of origin. I haven't yet updated the present page with the information because I haven't yet checked the sources mentioned here. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I am going to answer your points one by one, so the readers can clearly understand this side of the argument.

1. There is plenty of reason to believe that imperial Pratiharas were a Gurjara clan, the lack of Pratihara records saying so doesnt mean "they never called themselves by that name". It just means there have been none discovered. However, the contemporary records of the Arabs, Palas, and Rashtrakutas which call Pratiharas as Gurjaras have already been discovered, and cannot be ignored. The Rajor inscription and the writings of the Kannada poet Pampa give further clarification on this. Together all these evidences give enough reason that the so-called "Gurjara-Pratiharas" were in fact "Gurjara-Pratiharas".
2. The term "Gurjaratra" (country ruled or protected by the Gurjaras), would be meaningless if the term "Gurjara" didn't stand for a people. The historical places such as Gujrat, Gujranwala (city of Gujjars) and Gujar Khan (Gujar king), were named after the Gujjar tribe is accepted on all hands. The presence of a Gujjar "tribe" in Afghanistan and Pakistan is tantamount evidence that Gurjaras were first and foremost an ethnic people who named several places after them in ancient times.
3. Almost all historians agree that Gujjar is merely a modern form of the word Gurjar or Gurjara, and that Gujjars are the modern representatives of the ancient Gurjaras. Societies do evolve overtime, but that doesn't mean a Greek is not a descendant of the ancient Greeks, or that Greeks can’t claim their ancient history as their own. Call them Gurjara, Gurjar, Gujjar, or Gojjar, it's just different transitions in the history of a same people. The Gujjars, just like all the other modern descendants of an ancient people, have every right in this world to call Gurjara history as Gujjar history.

Its not my concern what some writers, who were ignorant of the true facts, have written about the Gurjaras. My concern is the true and logical representation of the facts. I agree with Wikipedia's policy that every side deserves the right to show its argument. However, it doesn't mean that we have to confuse the reader to the extent that he/she can't even differentiate between the different arguments. Conflicting arguments need to be clearly differentiated in an orderly fashion so the reader can easily identify and understand the different opinions or arguments, and make their own mind.

I will soon make a post listing all the issues that i have with this article. We have a lot of "one liner" arguments without any real explanation to what they mean in this article, there needs to be clear explanations for the readers. I hope I am making myself clear here. Cheers! Axtramedium (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are able to improve the article, nobody will have an objection. But I am afraid you made a bad start and your argumentation above doesn't give us a great deal of confidence in your neutrality. So please be cautious. You have been already informed about ARBIPA sanctions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV versus WP:RGW? Attempts to promote the Gurjar community are ten-a-penny on Wikipedia, and in particular where the "other side" is claimed to be Rajput. They almost always fall foul of our core policies etc. Care is indeed required and, sad though it is, too many people make a rod for their own backs. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I make no attempt to hide the fact that I represent the Gujjar point of view, and for that I might come across as someone who wants to shove his opinion down everyone's throat. My purpose is to give my side of the argument, but without censoring the other side. I do reserve the right to hold opinions, and try to convince others. Whatever I want to change, I will consult you beforehand, I am not the one to eat someone's cake without asking!;) Axtramedium (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: You should refrain from making these "ten-a-penny" comments, as they are highly inflammatory towards the Gujjar community. Try to stay at the topic, whether my point of view pleases your wishes or not.

I appreciate that you are helping me learn Wikipedia policies, but it almost feels like you are trying to discourage me from sharing my point of view by using the niceties of these policies.

Wikipedia takes a neutral approach so people can hear all sides of the argument and make up their own mind on the topic. I will try to make my side of the argument, and the other side is more than welcome to do so as well. The object of neutrality is not there to hide information from one side to make an artificial balance towards the other, but it's there to give an opportunity to all sides so they can make their arguments clear and fully understandable for the readers.

If my arguments are backed up by reliable secondary sources, then what seems to be the problem? Axtramedium (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If my arguments are backed up by reliable secondary sources, then what seems to be the problem? Having reliable sources is merely the starting point. When you have multiple opinions among the sources, you have to evaluate them by various ways, based on the time and venue of publication, the credentials and the notability of the scholars etc. You still have to cover all viewpoints. These are not easy things to do, and you would be well-advised to follow the guidance of experienced editors like Sitush. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Gurjara connections

The facts known about the Gurjara connections of "Gurjara-Pratiharas" are as follows.

• We have an inscription of Gallaka from 795AD, which says Nagabhata I defeated the "invincible Gurjaras."
• We have Huen Tsang, a hundred years earlier, describing the country of Gurjara (ku-che-lo) whose capital was Bhinmal (pi-lo-mo-lo).
• We have Arab chronicles talking about the campaign of Al Junayd (723-726 AD) on the country of Gurjara (Jurz).

So it seems that, by the time of Nagabhata I, the country itself was called Gurjara and its people Gurjaras. So all references to "Gurjara" in the later texts are ambiguous. The Rajor inscription from 959 AD is much too late. It settles nothing. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kautaliya3: It makes little sense to say that "Gurjaras" established a kingdom named "Gurjara" and, lo and behold, everyone from that kingdom started calling themselves "Gurjara"! Not to mention that the official name of the kingdom was Gurjaratra, which meant country protected by the Gurjaras! Naghabhata was a Pratihara, and Pratiharas had several different lines, ruling several different regions, it is reasonable to presume that Gallaka is referring to Naghabhata subduing other Pratihara lines. The words "invincible Gurjaras" sound more like praise than damnation, and why would a vassal king dare to praise the family of his master's enemy? Unless the family was the master's family! Axtramedium (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me. By the time of Nagabhata I, there was a Gurjara country with its capital at Bhinmal. Nagabhata presumably defeated them and established his own capital at the neighbouring Jalor (20 km away). Once Nagabhata and his descendants expanded their kingdom, the neighbouring kingdoms called them Gurjara-Pratiharas, i.e., the Pratihara clan of the Gurjara country. Whether that is what exactly happened, nobody knows. But it is a clearly plausible theory, promoted by well-known scholars such as Dasharatha Sharma. You are arguing that it is not plausible, and you are on thin ice there. So I think it is time for you to stop this argument. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your analysis of Gurjaratra is stretched. Ratra is cognate with Rashtra and basically means country. To give you a similar example, Andhras were an ethnic group from Bihar, who migrated south of Vindhyas in about 300BC. They established the Satavahana kingdoms in Maharastra and the present day Andhra Pradesh. Note that it is called "Andhra Pradesh" (the country of Andhras) and all its people call themselves "Andhras." There is no implication that every person of Andhra Pradesh belonged to the Andhra tribes that migrated in 300BC. The dominant ethnic groups can lend their name to regions and countries and then they lose the ownership of their own name. That is how it is. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kautaliya3: It absolutely makes no sense, as enemies usually dont like to call themselves by the name of their enemies. If Gurjaras were enemies of Naghabhatta it makes little sense to say that his family still called itself Gurjara. Even if he was from Gurjara country, he was well within power to get rid of this designation, and he should have, if he was not a Gurjara. The phrase "invincible Gurjaras" does sound out of place, the fuedotory is practically praising the enemies of his master, which makes no sense. Different branches of a same family have always contented for supremacy, and there is no reason to believe that Gurjaras didnt compete with each other also.

The kingdom's official name was Gurjaratra, and not Gurjara. It was called "Gurjara kingdom", to say "kingdom of the Gurjaras". Just like today ancient Gujaratis would have also called themselves Gurjarati, not Gujar or Gurjara. Whenever it is refered as "Gurjara" it means "kingdom of the Gurjaras", it makes no sense to call it "kingdom of the Gurjaras" if the rulers were not meant to be Gurjaras.

Dadda I, the uncle of Naghabhatta, is called "Gurjara-nrpati-vamsa" in an inscription, this proves that Naghabhatta was a Gurjara, as vamsa clearly implies family.

Mahipala, who was ruling a vast empire, is called "Gurjara Raja" by Pampa. Why should an emperor be called the Raja of a small territory only, it makes more sense that the term denoted his family.

Same thing with the Arab and Rashtrakuta references that mention the imperial Pratiharas as Gujar. Axtramedium (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a limit to how far we can go with this argumentation here, because whether we think it makes sense or not makes little difference. We still have to represent all scholarly opinions in the article. However, you are making two claims here for which I haven't see any evidence: (i) that the Nagabhata's family called itself Gurjara, (ii) that Dadda I was the uncle of Nagabhata. Can you provide sources for these claims? - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautaliya: I think I have provided several reasons why I believe they were Gurjaras, there is no point going in circles over this. Regarding Dadda I, you should look at this.

"Inscriptions testify to the existence of a line of fedatory Gurjrar chiefs ruling at Broach. The earliest date of the third chief of this dynasty is 629 A.D. Allowing fifty years for the two generations that preceded him, we get the date 580 A.D. for the Samanata Dadda who founded the line. The date corresponds so very well with that of Dadda, the youngest son of Harichandra, that the identity of the two may be at once presumed." (Epigraphia Indica. Vol. XVIII. p.98. Jodhpur Inscription of Pratihara Bauka by R.C. Majumdar.) 173.206.71.53 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Who are Gujar

--Georgian origin-- Dr. Huthi of Georgia paid a visit to India in 1967 and studied the Gujars living in northern India. He has stated that there are Georgian tribes among the Indian Gujars, because their accent, their dress, and their bullock carts resemble those of Georgians. Oral traditions of the tribe and some archaeological evidence (particularly cultural and phonetic) suggest that the word Gujar is a derivation of Gurjara and sounds like "Gurjiya/Georgia " (Gurjiya or Gurjistan being the Persian name for Georgia) - indicating that the Gujar tribe is partially of Caucasian/Central Asian origin (Georgia-Chechnya etc). Dr. Huthi is of the view that they came to India when Timur held a reign of terror over them, and consequently they settled here. They came here to protect their lives and religion, and called themselves by the Persian word for "Georgian", "Gurjis". Later this word was presumably changed into "Gurjar" or "Gujjar" or "Gujur"(particularly in Afghanistan) Sisodiyashubham (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that describes this research? - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Pratihara tribes?

In this edit by Axtramedium, it is claimed that the Pratiharas were a "tribe," along with Gurjaras. It is true that the cited source (Burjor Avari) says this, but Avari provides little support for it. The footnote 2 in the vicinity cites Thapar 2002: 418–21; Wink 1991: 281–3. But neither of them contain this conclusion. All the other sources I have consulted don't have this claim either. As far as we know, Pratihara was a name used by some dynastic families, including the Gurjara-Pratiharas, Mandor Pratiharas and the Pratiharas of Nandipuri. So, unless there are multiple reliable sources that claim this, we can't put that in the lead. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautaliya3: I am not convinced of his opinion either, but since the misrepresentation of his statement was causing a huge edit war, I thought it was best to clarify his view, as well as make both sides happy. Axtramedium (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Axtramedium

why you are so desperate to prove Pratiharas or Rajputs as Gurjars. The line you have written below can have serious consequences and is very different from the actual sentence and meaning of content in the book by burjor avari. As per you:

The term "Gurjara" originally referred to a nomadic, pastoral people, believed to have been the predecessors of modern-day Rajput and Gurjar groups.[1]

but as per the book by prof burjor given in the link below: https://books.google.ca/books?id=DmB_AgAAQBAJ&pg=PT303&dq=gurjara+pratihara&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=gurjara%20pratihara&f=false

as per this mr. burjor origin of rajputs is still matter of debate but as agreed by almost all scholar the group has been formed by assimilation or Aryan kshatriya and foreign ruling tribes, he also holds the same theory. then how can you declare Gurjara as predecessor of mordern day rajputs citing this line and by the way why are you discussing origin of rajputs in the pratiharas article.

The matter of fact is the according to earliest historical inscription found related to pratiharas i.e Mandore and Ghatiyala ; states that dynasty was founded by King Harishchandra Pratihara was a Brahmin by caste and pratihara kshatriyas were born from his kshatriya queen. and i am surprised to that you have even not mentioned that. The fact is that pratiharas were able to enter in the kshatriya group was because they have Aryan Brahmin origin. And as stated by many scholars Gurjara or Gurjaratra was name of a country and residents of gurjara when they use to migrate any where were known as Gurjara only irrespective of their social status. Gurjara was not any ethnicity. By the where do you find feminism in the word "Bharatiy"!! i was very surprised reading your arguments about Gallaka inscription. Wiki is still rated of having low credibility.... and you an admin is arguing with shit!! Please kindly correct and remove the same.1.39.40.104 (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The Ghatiyala inscription is from 861 CE! Half the history was over by then. No way is it an "earliest historical inscription." Mihirabhoja's Sagartal inscription was also around the same time. So, both the families invented the Pratihara label around the same time. Anyway, I haven't seen anybody contest that Harichandra (not "Harischandra") was a Brahmin. But the Kshatriya wife could well have been fiction.

There is indeed consensus among historians that all Rajputs were formed by "assimilation" into Kshatriya clans. Avari too believes so. No surprise there. But he is also saying that Pratiharas themselves were a tribe (possibly separately from Gurjaras). He is alone in saying that, as far as I know. That is why this doesn't belong in the lead- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@1.39.40.104: Do you not understand the difference between Bharat and Bharatee? Do you not realize that the majority of the historians called this empire Gurjara-Pratihara because they believed Pratiharas to be a clan of the Gurjara tribe (based on Rajor inscription)? Let me give you some advice, next time leave your pride at home and don't forget your manners. Best of luck! Axtramedium (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I believe Avari's opinion is quite similar to Shanta on this, but not in its entirety. Her theory essentially means the same thing, that Pratiharas and Gurjaras were two separate tribes that were hostile to each other. Needless to say, I concur with neither. Axtramedium (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@axtramedium i second the anonymous user on his comment !!! give me one inscriptional or factual documented evidence in where any pratihara king have declared themselves as a Gurjar . Even give me the reference of a single historical document which list Gurjar clans. Well!! all the theories put forward by great historians of colonial era are based upon probability not factual and they were quite positive in mentioning that most of Gurjar origin and Rajput origin theories are actually baseless!! and they do not have any evidences to support that!!! Well i have seen references from Great Historian Rahul Khari on your site in the solanki article !! surprisingly he has founded the Agnikula Gurjar Clans also. Please refrain from using such biased sources. Moreover, lets be bold and put the references of latest DNA and genetic studies. Results are quite amazing and thrashes these base less theories.

Regarding the word Gurjara this has not appeared before 6 th Century AD and the theory of linking them with Khajjars and Georgians are just an example of bad use etymology. We can produce the well documented proofs such as birth certificates, gazetteers and caste certificate which can prove that word Gurjara was used by many sects who were known pastoral Gujjars as stated by V.B Mishra they are migrants of Gurjaratra. There are still many community in the central India such as Gurjar Brahmins , Gurjar Baniya , Gurjar Kunbis , Reve Gurjars , Dode Gurjars , Gurjar Mistry , Gurjar Patels (Kurmis). who are not so called pastoral Gujjars. So if there are contemporary arguments studies and proofs which thrashes colonial etymological poop which you have incorporated in this article also !! then your statement of Rajput ancestry in this article becomes invalid and unjustified !! please remove the same !! Rajput Sirdar (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Let us avoid too much of WP:FORUMy discussion. What statement are you saying should be removed? - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rajput Sirdar: Read Rajor inscription. Read about BarGujar Rajputs. Read about Chauhan Gujjars. Read about Solanki Gujjars. Read about Parmar Gujjars. Read about Tanwar Gujjars. Read about Parihar Gujjars. These clans are still present in the Gujjar tribe in large numbers. This is reality! but you will deny it as usual. Read about Arabs, Rashtrakuttas, and Palas who call their north Indian opponent by the name Gurjar. You will not find the word Rajput mentioned in any ancient book or inscription in reference to the Pratiharas , but has that stopped you from calling Gurjara-Pratiharas as Rajputs? I dont think so! Dont you have a double standard then? However you WILL find the word Gurjar mentioned many times in reference to the imperial Pratiharas in several ancient books and inscriptions, but again you will deny it. Axtramedium (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya thanks a ton to you. Thanks for understanding the other side of coin also. We feel the statement that added by Wiki in this article that depicts Pastoral Gurjar as predecessor of Rajput tribes is unjustified and should be removed. As the origin of Pastoral Gujjar, their link with Gurjara and Khajjar tribes , their link with Gurjaratra and Pratiharas has been successfully challenged several times. Actually according to latest study genetically Muslim Khajjar are totally different from Hindu Gurjar who are much more closer to Jats and Rajputs. We should regard Wikipedia as a public forum and open for all as it should be. I see a lot of propagandas are going through wiki to mould the Indian and neighbouring states history. Some wiki admins support them and are in the suspect of getting paid by the specific communities who want to get sudden popularity after independence. I read all the in the talks above and read the explanation of axtramedium who wants to deny and mould everything to prove Pratiharas as Gujjars. I think Gallaka inscription clarifies it all in which it is clearly mentioned that Nagbhatta has defeated the “Invincible Gurjara”. Now your contributor is seeking family line in the word invincible which totally unjustified. As the word invincible was used to describe his achievement of defeating a Gurjara king. He is seeking fabrication in Ghatiyala inscription too in which King Harichandra ancestor of Mandore line of pratiharas is clearly mentioned as a Brahmin. The inter changeable of Brahmin and Kshatriya varna is quite well explained in Vedas and manusmriti. The NCERT the publication of Government of India has adopted this inscription to list Gurjara Pratiharas as Kshatriyas of Brahmin origin and hence Rajputs (Please refer class VII history book easily available on net) and this will be accepted in UPSC too. But then your biased contributor also question NCERT and tells government biased. It’s like Wiki is kind of Hijacked by a group of particular section who will deprive and try to supress your right argument also in order to put their thoughts on the article. This way Wiki will surely loose it s credibility further. Common it’s a public forum!! But does not seems like that. Coming back to the topic all the lines of Pratiharas have kept themselves aside from Gurjaras and the refrained the use of word Gurjara to describe themselves except for Rajor line. We all know till now no relation can be proven between the lines of Rajor and Avanti along with Mandore. We know many clans that have migrated to Gurjara for eg take Chalukyas were annexed as Gurjara Naresha or rulers of Gurjara along with Chauhans etc. Even Gaekwads are also mentioned as Gurjara Naresh in several text see the link below for example , does not means that they are Gurjar by ethnicity: http://www.poloclubofbaroda.org/history.php As explained by K.K Munshi and V.B Mishra the term gurjara bore a geographical meaning when used with pratihara as many communities migrated or residing Gurjaratra whether of any XYZ ethnicity were and still uses the term Gurjara. Colonial historians also fails to explain why ,how and what basis they have coincided the term Khajjar in to Gurjar which is Sanskrit word meaning destroyer of enemy. Well there are many other evidenced been overlooked by colonial historians as well as by team wiki which describes the Indo Aryan origin of Pratihara such as inscription of Chauhan Vigrah raj (973 AD) which clearly describes them as Raghuvanshi. Rajshekhara has also described Samrat Mahendra Pal dev ( 836 – 910 CE) aslo as Raghuvanshi in his Kapuri Manjari. There are several other texts and inscriptions of Pratiharas of Avanti Gwalior & Kannauj which points pratiharas as Raghuvanshi. Even Ghatiyala inscription also points the same. We are not telling you to remove pro Gurjara phrases but you should improve this article by adding the above mentioned inscriptional evidenced to it. Wikipedia should not act as child of the contributors who are members of specific community. And steps should be taken to check the internet propaganda against one community by other community by wiki which is becoming quite often here. I know our pro Gujjar contributor will try to contradict every statement I made here. But truth should come up and should revealed soon Genetic studies will flush out all the colonial shit based upon probability possibility and etymological poops. As per now please remove the statement stating Gurjara tribes as predecessors of Rajputs. As Gurjara origin theory of pratihara has been challenged in the later section of the article also and is a debatable issue. The origin of Gurjara and their relation with pastoral gujjars is also a subject of debate. The theories based on the possibilities and probabilities should not be boldly stated until it is a fact as it hurts communal sentiments and that phrase is neither required in the pratihara article.Rajput Sirdar (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@axtramedium presence of chauhan solanki tanwar in Gujjar caste does not mean that ancestor of these castes were gujjars. All of these surnames are present in jats , rors , kardiya , loniya , khati , nai , dhobi , khaki , gola , ravana , kushwah and many communities in India. And theories of Gurjara origin Parmaras , Chauhans , Solankis have been proved baseless. Rajput Sirdar (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, as you can see, we can never reach agreement on this issue. Fortunately, we don't have to. The Wikipedia policy of NPOV means that we simply state the various views and move on. We think we should move on. There is a lot more to Gurjara-Pratiharas than their name. Let us focus on building a proper article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes we too want the article to get settled down ; you can keep both the contemporary researches as from them it's getting clear how pratiharas were confused with pastoral gujjars and how term Gurjar bores geographical as well national meaning. But we request you to remove that Gurjar predecessor statement as that is not a factual theory and based upon probability. And I will forward you all some latest genetic studies which will prove the contemporary facts about Rajput race and will shut this etymological mess. 106.218.241.43 (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Since that statement says "it is believed" and a historian believing it has been cited, it can stay. If you are serious about these issues, then I suggest that you get hold of reliable sources like Dasharatha Sharma's Rajasthan through the ages, and start editing articles using them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rajput Sirdar: First of all, let me make it clear that I don’t blame you or anyone else for not knowing the history of the Gujjar people, as our history is a “forgotten history”. It is neither taught in the schools, nor preserved by our own people, it has only been “rediscovered” through recent archeological and anthropological surveys of India. Your statements directed towards the Gujjar community, where you portray them as mere “pastoralists”, are reflective of the common stereotypes about Gujjars. These misconceptions are far removed from the actual reality of the Gujjars as a people, and even further from their historical reality.

The ruling house of Broach has clearly recorded in its inscriptions that it belonged to “Gurjara-nrpati-Vamsa” meaning “the royal family of Gurjaras”. This is historical evidence that Gurjara was not only the name of a family, but a royal family. The term “Gurjaratra” is either translated as “Gurjara Nation” or “Gurjara Protection”. It has also been mentioned as “Gurjaratra Bhumi” in several inscriptions, when the word “Bhumi” (which means “Land”) is added to the word “Gurjaratra”, it can only mean “land of the Gurjara nation” or “land of the Gurjara protection”. The Gurjaras who founded the Gurjaratra kingdom (present-day Rajasthan) were renowned royal warriors or Kshatriyas, and their kingdom was the second biggest in north India around 630 AD, as noted by Huen Tsang in his memoirs. The words “invincible Gurjaras”, “thundering Gurjaras”, and “roaring Gurjaras” as mentioned in several royal inscriptions speak volumes about the bravery of this Gurjar nation. Even the author Shanta Rani Sharma, who is strongly opposed to the Gurjara origin of the Pratiharas, admits that there was “a strong contemporary Gurjara power in the eighth century”. In fact, she states that a victory over the Gurjaras was considered such an achievement that the Pratihara dynasty became famous as Gurjaraesvaras. The Gujjars are also one of the Rajput clans, and have the distinction of having “Bada” or “Bara” added to their name, which none of the other Rajput clans have. The name “Bar Gujar” is actually “Bara Gujar” which means “Great Gujar”. The ancient capital of the BarGujars was Rajor, which also links them with Maharajadhiraja Mathanadeva, who himself belonged to the Pratihara clan of the Gurjaras, as mentioned in the Rajor inscription.

The relationship between the words Gurjaratra and Gurjara can further be understood by reading the history of the Gujrat district of Punjab (Pakistan). Although this district had historically been part of a Gurjara kingdom (mentioned in Rajatarangini), the Gujjars of this region had long been displaced and dispossessed of their ancestral holdings. Their persecution had driven them to banditry and plunder, as a means of survival, and they regularly intercepted the Mughal caravans going from Peshawar to Lahore. This fact has been recorded in the biographies of Babur and Sher Shah Suri. During the rule of Akbar (the Mughal emperor) a fort was built here, and to curb the Gujjar problem, the emperor offered the elders of this tribe to settle in this fort. The offer was accepted and with time this town came to be known as Gujrat, as it had become the abode of the Gujjar community. The history of this district’s name clarifies the fact that Gurjaratra, Gujarat, or Gujrat, were names which the Gujjar people gave to places that were settled by them. There are many other places named Gujrat as well, such as the one in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (Pakistan).

You should read what the Anthropological Survey of India (AnSI) (which is a government organization responsible for studying the people of India) has to say about the Gujjars: “The Gurjars/Gujjars were no doubt a remarkable people spread from Kashmir to Gujarat and Maharasthra, who gave an identity to Gujarat, established kingdoms, entered the Rajput groups as the dominant lineage of Badgujar, and survive today as a pastoral and a tribal group with both Hindu and Muslim segments”.

The Gujjars are found in every walk of life, and have been settled agriculturists for ages, as can be seen from the hundreds of places named after these people across Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan. The pastoral Gujjars, found in Kashmir and Himalayas, are only a miniscule part of the Gujjar population. The Gujjars are an ancient nation, which was renowned for its warriors, they are not a mere a tribe or clan. They had their own government, country, culture, language, and art – which are all the qualifications of a proper nation. If I start listing the Gujjar dignitaries of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, this whole page will be filled, but I will suffice it to say a few names. The “Iron man of India”, Sardar Vallabhai Patel, and the author of “Pakistan Declaration” who was also the originator of the name “Pakistan”, Chaudhry Rehmat Ali Khan, were both Gujjars. The ex-president of India, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, and the ex-president of Pakistan, Fazal Ilahi Chaudhry, were both Gujjars. There are villages upon villages of Gujjars all across north India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, where they are the sole landowners of the area, and are known as Sardar, Chaudhary, Rana, or Malik. Therefore, I would advise you to learn about the Gujjar history from a reliable academic source, instead of believing in empty speculations, rhetoric, and plain old stereotypes. --Axtramedium (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Singh's Islamization in Modern South Asia

Can anyone see a reason why we shouldn't use this book as a source? Islamization in Modern South Asia: Deobandi Reform and the Gujjar Response by David Emmanuel Singh, published by Walter de Gruyter, 2012, ISBN 978-1-61451-185-4. Walter de Gruyter are a respected academic press. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is entirely speculative based on the Raj era speculations. An authentic modern book has this to say: The origin of the Rajputs is a red herring much dragged about in historical writings on early-medieval and medieval India. These writing reveal an extreme polarity of opinions, extending in range from attempts to trace the Rajputs to foreign immigrant stocks of the post-Gupta period—explaining in the process a later origin myth, namely the Agnikula myth, as a purification myth—to contrived justifications for viewing the Rajputs as of pure kshatriya origin. According to Chattopadhyaya, there is nothing unusual about the development of settled agriculture and state-formation in Rajasthan compared to other regions of India, and no exotic theories are necessary. There is clear evidence of Rajasthan developing rain-fed agriculture by 600-700 AD, which led previously pastoral people to settle into agriculture and form villages, towns and states. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hm. Your source was published in 2012. So is the book I mentioned. If nothing else, they are equally "modern". I'm not sure what you mean by "authentic". - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I meant that it is modern history based empirical evidence, as opposed to Raj era history that was 10% evidence and 90% speculation. Burton Stein's review of the book says: When asked recently to recommend essential reading in medieval Indian history, I unhesitatingly proposed the book under review. The reason was partly its comparativist approach, absent from too much Indian history writing, but primarily it was because of the theoretical and universalizing bent of Chattopadhyaya's work and the rigorous way that it calls on empirical validation.

The book you mentioned is merely parroting the Raj era speculations and hence I wouldn't call it "authentic". (It could be authentic about its main subject, but the origin of Gujjars is only incidental to its purpose. I wouldn't blame the author if he didn't research it thoroughly.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Proposal: Edit Etymology Section

I propose that the etymology section should look something like this:

Etymology:

The nomenclature "Gurjara-Pratihara" is based on the Rajor inscription. It mentions the Pratihara king, Maharajadhiraja Mathanadeva, as "Gurjara Pratiharavayah". This expression is defined by scholars, such as Rama Shankar Tripathi, to mean that the Pratiharas were a clan of the Gurjara tribe. Some scholars, such as C.V. Vaidya, argue that the word Gurjara in this expression does not imply a tribe or people but the ancient country called Gurjara (Gurjjaratra-bhumi). Tripathi however challenges this view of Vaidya based on the 12th line of the Rajor inscription, which reads "together with all the neighbouring fields cultivated by the Gurjaras". Here the term Gurjara has specifically been used to mention a people, so he says that it is reasonable to assume that the same term should imply the same thing in the other line as well, which is Gurjara people and not Gurjara country (Gurjjaratra-bhumi).

The Pratiharas are also called Gurjara by the Rashtrakuta records. The Arab writers like Abu Zaid and Al Masudi who wrote about their fights with the Pratiharas, also referred to them as Gurjaras. These references to Gurjaras were undoubtedly applied to the imperial Pratiharas, because at this time only the imperial Praitharas were powerful enough to contend against the Arabs and the Rashtrakuttas. The Kanarese poet Pampa calls Mahipala, who as an imperial Pratihara king, as "Gurjara Raja". If the title "Gurjara Raja" is taken in the geographical sense, then it would not be suitable for Mahipala, because Gurjara only represented a small kingdom in Mahipala's vast empire. The term could only be suitable if it was meant in a tribal sense.

According to the Gawalior and Jodhpur inscriptions, the great Gurjara-Pratihara ancestor the glorious Sri Lakshamana was known as a Pratihara (door-keeper), as he masterfully repelled his enemies; which is how this family came to be known as Pratihara. However, Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava notes that some people believe that a Gurjara chief served the Rashtrakuta ruler as a pratihara (door-keeper) at a sacrifice at Ujjain about the middle of the eighth century CE, and that's where they got this name from. Axtramedium (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

References

The problem is that you have cherrypicked sources. How many more times must you be told that not all sources agree with those that you have selected? - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: Care to explain what exactly are you referring to? So I can reply to accordingly. If you read my reference you should see that Ramashankar Tripathi references C.V.Vaidya on p.221 when he talks about the opposing views to his views. I am only stating what the secondary source has said exactly, but only in my own words, so the readers can understand it better. I am not mixing anything here, or cherry picking. Axtramedium (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

He is saying that you are picking the sources you like, and ignoring the others that you don't like. You can't do that as a Wikipedian. In the Nagabhata I article, I have cited two current journal articles by Sanjay Sharma and Shanta Rani Sharma, published within the last decade, from opposing points of view. You need to read them. If you can't access them, please send me email and I can send you copies. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kautaliya3: This article is about "Gurjara"-Pratiharas, and the etymology section contains no information about how this nomenclature came to being. As of now, it contains some random references to Rajputs (thats ironic, because neither the Pratiharas, nor their contemporaries, ever called them that). The reference I provided not only explains the term, but also gives both perspectives on its meanings. I clearly dont agree with C.V. Vaidya's point of view, and I have given his reference, havent I? hows that biased?

How do you know what they or their contemporaries called them? And why should your opinion rate more highly than that of reliable academic sources etc? BTW, I think the Agnihotri quotation is very ambiguous - do they mean "the nomenclature" in the sense of general usage or in the sense of their own writing? I am also not wonderfully happy about using Vaidya, who was writing nearly a century ago, nor am I sure that all sources rely solely on the Rajor inscription, which is effectively how you are presenting things in your draft.

I must add: thanks for presenting it as a draft - it is much better to do that in situations where there is disagreement than to edit the article directly and potentially kick off an edit war etc. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please also note that I have just had to fix edits such as this, which happened recently and do not reflect the sources. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Axtramedium: This Etymology section states that scholars like Baij Nath Puri use the term "Gurjara-Pratiharas" and the Origins section describes both the Tripathi and Dasharatha Sharma views. We could add some more detail to the Etymology section but we can't erase the fact that there are diverging views among scholars. Neither can we act as if one view is more correct than the other. I will work on adding some more detail. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I have already explained this matter, but I will do it again. The Pratihara king, Maharajadhiraja Mathanadeva, is called "Gurjara Pratiharavay" in Rajor inscription, and that is the only epiphrahical instance of this nomeclature. The knowledge of this term DOES originate from this inscription.

How do I know they were not called Rajputs? Because the Rashtrakuttas, Palas, and the Arabs, called them Gurjaras, not Rajput. 173.206.71.53 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The etymology section is suppose to explain the origin of both words Gurjara and Pratihara. But I am afraid thats not the case here, and I fail to understand why its not apparent to you.

Pratiharas were not Gujjars. It's a mistake commonly done. BTW,they might have some connections with Rajputs, though unclear. In an inscription of the late ninth century issued by King Bhoja-I, they claimed Solar descent for the dynasty and Lakshmana being the ancestor of their family. Their inscriptions were silent on the question of origin till the glorious days of Bhoja. This epigraphic tradition of the Solar descent is connected chronologically with the period during which they were the dominant political power. The tradition, thus,represents a stage of imperial prominence with the temptation to establish a link with the heroic age of the epics. And, such things were common at that time.Ghatus (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the term "Pratihara" also occurs for the first time in Bhoja's inscription. Before that, they probably didn't have a name for the dynasty. So, "Gurjara" has a greater claim to their name. However, Gurjara was a country based at Bhinmal in 630 AD according to Hieun Tsang. K. M. Mushi says that all the people that came from that country were called Gurjaras. See the Origins section. So, the ambiguity between the ethnic group and the general people of Gurjara country will forever remain. Our friend is never going to be happy. Such is life. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautaliya3:This is a made up ambiguity. Even if Gurjara was originally the name of a kingdom, its people would be called "Gurjari" (feminine gender) not "Gurjar" (masculine gender). Just like Gujrati, Rajasthani, Punjabi, Sindhi, Kashmiri, etc. Not to forget (again) that the proper name of this kingdom was "Gurjaratra" which means "country protected by Gurjaras", which is further evidence that Gurjars were first and foremost a people, who named several places after them. (And Gurjaratra didnt stand for Gurjara Rashtra or Ratra, it stands for Gurjara+Tra). Again! the term "Gurjara" was used to say "kingdom of the Gurjaras", and Huen Tsang used it in the same way.

But lets assume for a moment that the term Gurjara stood for the citizens of Gurjara kingdom, the Pratiharas would still be Gurjaras, as they belonged to Gurjara kingdom. There is no escaping the reality that the Pratiharas belonged to the Gurjara identity, no matter what you try. And the Rajputs would still be the descendants of these Gurjaras. Indeed, some people will never be happy, and life is beautiful. Cheers! - Axtramedium (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, how can you even think that the changes you made in the origin section are acceptable when the very title of your source is "Exploding the Myth of the Gūjara Identity of the Imperial Pratihāras"!!! May be its just me, but it doesnt look very neutral to me! - Axtramedium (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Axtramedium, your claims ("There is no escaping the reality...") are your own original research. Indian Historical Review, on the other hand, is a peer-reviewed academic journal. If you have a reliable source that supports your claims, feel free to add it to the article. It's perfectly acceptable to have multiple attributable viewpoints in an article ("According to X, .... According to Y, ..."). But, please don't remove content supported by a reliable citation. utcursch | talk 19:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, his preferred viewpoint is already covered. He just wants to delete the alternative viewpoint. That, he can't do, as per WP:NPOV. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Utcursch:Are you kidding me? This edit is completely unnecessary, almost everything this edit added is already present in the section. The only thing new added by it is the information regarding Gallaka inscription, to which BTW there is no information available on the net at all. Not only that, apparently this citation has contradicting information, in one sentence it says the Pratiharas never called themselves “Gurjara” then in another it refers to Rajor inscription which actually contains the term “Gurjara Pratihara” refering to a Gurjara Pratihara king, in a Gurjara Pratihara kings inscription. May be you are too quick to judge me, but when I tried to propose a change here, you should read the kind of responses I got from this person. He did pretty much everything opposite to what he preached. - Axtramedium (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that was already present in the section was the Gurjara Pratihārānvayah bit. You could have simply streamlined its two mentions instead of removing the entire paragraph. "No information available on the net at all" isn't a valid reason (besides not being true). Rajor inscription belongs to Mathanadeva, not the Pratiharas themselves. So, there is no contradiction. utcursch | talk 20:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And I agree that the etymology section should explain the prefix Gurjara as well. The redundancy and overlapping content between the Etymology and Origin sections need to be resolved, though. utcursch | talk 20:14, 7 August 2015(UTC)

@Utcursch:Maharajadhiraja Mathanadeva was also a Pratihara as is evident from his title "Ghurjara Pratiharavayah", and not only that, the term "Maharajadhiraja" implies that he was more than a "mere" vassal king. The term Maharajadhiraja means "king of kings", which if not already apparent, implies an imperial position. - Axtramedium (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Axtramedium: I have referred you to these current journal papers on 31 July [1], and I offered to send you the papers if you can't access them. But you never contacted me. You should not be continuing this debate with your WP:OR without reading these papers. The new Etymology section that you have added is duplicating the material of the Origins section and it is problematic for that reason. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My two cents: the etymology section can contain 1-2 sentences (something like "They are also referred to as Gurjara-Pratiharas; some scholars believe that Gurjara refers to the ethnicity, others believe that it refers to the region they ruled. See origin section for explanation"). That way, duplication can be avoided. utcursch | talk 22:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautaliya3: I want to make this clear that I have no intention of censoring anybody. I want all perspectives to be present, and easily understandable. You can send me the information at axtramedium@gmail.com, and I will get back to you as soon as possible. -Axtramedium (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Two points: (1) We are writing an Encyclopedia. Our objective is to inform, not to argue. (2) For historical information, we have to follow WP:HISTRS for sources. Of the sources you mentioned, the book by Rama Shankar Tripathi is the only one that has some chance of meeting the requirements. (However, I suspect that it is also a reprint of a very old book, in which case it wouldn't meet the requirements.) I have sent you the current papers by email. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautaliya3:After reading the papers you provided, I have to say that the only argument raised by Shanta Rani Sharma that can be called "recent" is regarding the Gallaka inscription, rest of the whole paper is merely putting old wine into new bottles. These arguments have been made previously by D.C. Ganguly, D.S. Sharma, and G.H. Ojha, and were deemed unplausible by most historians, including the ones whose research uncovered Gurjara-Pratihara history in the first place, such as D.R. Bhandarkar, A.M.T. Jackson, Rudolf Hoernle, R.C. Majumdar, B.N. Puri, R.S. Tripathi, V.A. Smith, Alexander Cunningham (the founder of Indian Archeology), A.H. Bingley, and Georg Buhler.

Now coming back to the Gallaka inscription, as I have already stated it is far from being "conclusive", the Gurjara tribe had several different clans and these clans had several different lines, so it could have simply been a reference to Naghabhatta subduing other Gurjara clans and establishing his clan (Gurjara-Pratihara) as the dominant power. The wording of this inscription is further evidence for this possibility, otherwise why would you call an already "defeated" enemy as "undefeatable" (or "invincible")? In fact, it would be a contradictory statement if Naghabhatta wasn't a Gurjara himself. It is too ambiguous to have a definite meaning.

I don't think I need to comment on the rest of her points, as they have already been answered by a plethora of well known scholars that are too important in the historiography of Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty to be just brushed aside. Axtramedium (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not interested in your "points." If you wish to contest the Shanta Rani Sharma's conclusions, you need to do so in a refereed journal, not here. It is clear from the two papers that there is no scholarly consensus among the contemporary scholars. So WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT apply. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kautaliya3: First of all, they are not my points, there is a 100 years of scholarship behind these "points", so quit beating that drum already. Secondly, there is no "contemporary" research being done on this dynasty, all the contemporary writers are still using the research of D.R. Bhandarkar, A.M.T. Jackson, B.N. Puri and R.C. Majumdar, including your "contemporary" articles. So while I do understand Wikipedia policies, basing this article on contemporary scholarship is like taking an indirect course to these authors. I can use your own papers to refer to the views of these authors, as they clearly are mentioned in the writings of your "contemporary scholars", which means they still hold "weight". Axtramedium (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no scholarly consensus. Three editors, Sitush, Utcursch and I have pointed this out to you multiple times. You have also been warned of possible sanctions. So I think it is best for you to move on. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kautaliya3: The opinion of Shanta Rani Sharma is a minority view. The majority view is that the Pratiharas were a clan of the Gurjaras or Gujjars, and Rajputs are their descendants. Have a nice day. Axtramedium (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If Shanti Rani Sharma was the only scholar that said this, we would of course ignore it. But she is one among many. There are persuasive arguments on both the sides. So both the sides need to be represented in the article. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not happy with the current Etymology section written by Axtramedium, which ignores the fact that Gurjara was also the name of the country. Further, the sources used V. K. Agnihotri and the book Early Aryans to Swaraj are not WP:HISTRS. I will be editing it to fix the problems. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautaliya3: If you think this clarifies both views, then very well, I have no objections. I think we should just drop the argument, and focus on making this article as informative as possible. Cheers! Axtramedium (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet another revision

diff

@Sitush: I dont see you making any effort to EXPLAIN your objections ONCE AGAIN, why am I not surprised? The simple fact that some people, including you, contested a single part of the edit, which I have clearly done away with, doesnt merit a revert. Please explain, why have you reverted to a version that clearly lacks some crucial facts which any reader would highly appreciate. Your editorial bias is not hidden from anyone, as your comments regarding the Gujjar community are out in the open, so dont try to pretend, and save me the trouble of pointing out. Whatever your thoughts, please don't forget to share your reliable sources. Otherwise, step aside, and let me add this well needed information. Axtramedium (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The burden is on you to obtain consensus for your changes, bearing in mind the clearly contentious nature of your past proposals. Far better to hash it out here that repeatedly change the article. I suggested as much in my edit summary. Let's face it, you have a record of pov-pushing on this subject matter. Much more of it and I suspect you will be topic banned. - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Lets stay to the point here, and not waste our valuable time giving childish insignificant threats. Have YOU any issues with this edit? If not, its time for you to step aside and not act like a baby sitter for others. If anyone has an issue with this edit, they can express it themselves, they dont require your assistance in the least. Axtramedium (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, you give the appearance of bullying by going against convention. The opening post in this very section is from months ago and is a proposal by you. People objected to it and things have dragged on because you are insistent that you get your point of view into the article by some means or another. You're welcome to keep arguing, within the limits of WP:IDHT / WP:TE etc, but flipping strategy yet again to make bold changes after discussion has begun is not how we do things. It gives the impression that you want to force your outlook into the article at any costs and experienced contributors, in particular, tend to hear alarm bells with that type of behaviour.

So, propose your changes here, explaining why you think they improve the article. - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe I brought significant factual improvements to the article. The old etymology section was a complete one sided story, which none of the experienced editors over here had any problem with. In any case, I tried, and with Kautilya3's agreement, we had a good neutral etymology section. Until you and another editor decided to take out whole bits of information, and leave the article in a fragmentary shape. If you ask me that is bullying. In any case, an objection cannot be entertained just for the sake of entertainment, there has to be some merit behind it, what is the merit of your current objection, other than looking out for the feelings of other editors? Axtramedium (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I agreed to anything. Gurjara was the name of a country in 600 CE, and it still is. There is nothing unusual about a dynasty that laid claim to ruling the whole country being called "Gurjara-Pratiharas," especially when there was another line of rulers in Mandor who were also calling themselves "Pratiharas." All efforts to link them to the Gurjara tribes are speculations and not an ounce of evidence has ever been produced for it. We are just wasting time. Axtramedium, the consensus is against you. You need to move on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that when I made my first edit in the etymology section you said you were unhappy with some of its contents. You made your changes, and I told you if you feel that gives a better perspective I have no objections. And you thanked me for that post. The etymology section was not changed by you any further, giving me the impression that we had an agreement over it. Now in your haste you are forgetting all that.

Also, I find it ironic that after editing the origins section, where you have explained to the readers the exact same thing I have tried to explain in the etymology section, you find issues with what I have to say. But apparently, Sitush has no problems with your edits, just like yourself. And icing on the cake is, even after listing some of the evidence, which might suggest the Gurjaras and Pratiharas are related to each other, you are implying there is not an "ounce of evidence" for it. You guys not exactly critical thinkers are you, just look at the name of the dynasty my friends. Axtramedium (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Why was the dynasty named Gurjara-Pratihara, meaning Pratihara clan of the Gurjaras, if there is no proof for it. Dont tell me the British and Indian historians of the time were conspiring against you guys. Axtramedium (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to talk about what happened way back, please add the diffs.

I don't have solid information for when they began to be called "Gurjara-Pratiharas" and why. But it was certainly in the colonial times. And I believe the term came into being because the Matthanadeva's inscription was among the first to be discovered.

I added content to the origin section because that is what is important for the purposes of this article. The etymology section should briefly explain the meanings of terms. That is all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Early Rulers

A few other names should be inserted in the section with the name "Early Rulers" of the main Article page. As per the available sources, it is very much clear that Nagbhatta was although the first to gain importance, yet was not the first ruler of the Gurjar Pratihar clan. Dadda 1-2-3 and Jayabhatta -1-2-3-4 were the other rulers whose names may be added to this list. The Real Rana (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Dadda and Jayabhatta were rulers of a different dynasty (Gurjaras of Nandipuri). They did not use the self-designation "Pratihara". Their connection with the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty of Nagabhatta is only a speculative theory supported by a few scholars such as V. B. Mishra. utcursch | talk 13:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Overweight section on Etymology and Origins

By normal principles of Wikipedia, the Etymology and Origins section is overweight. Utcursch has helpfully made a separate on the origins. So that is where all the details and debates should go. When I get time, I am going to cut this section down to size and moving all the debates to the Origins article. Gujjar Han, please add your contributions there, not here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I created a separate article to keep the Gujjar-Rajput dispute and other controversies out of this article. This article needs to focus more on the dynasty's political history, art and architecture etc. utcursch | talk 13:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend keeping Etymology and Origins separate.

In etymology, the focus should be "the history of the name Gurjara-Pratihara", and nothing else. Obviously, here the reader deserves to know the following:

- The word Gurjara Pratihara originates from Rajor inscription.

- It was applied to this dynasty during the British Raj.

- The word Gurjara in this name has been interpreted by historians as either the name of a tribe, nationality, or a kingdom.

- The word Pratihara is a clan name, which is said to have been the title of the Kshatriya hero Lakshmana.

In the Origins section the following matters should be discussed:

- The Kshatriya or Central Asian origins.

- The fact that they were part of a people known as Gurjaras. (without implying any particular meaning, as there is no conflict of opinion over this fact among historians, it is a neutral view)

I agree that since Utcursch has made a separate article on Gurjara Pratihara origins (congratulations to him on a job well done!), it is unnecessary to mention all the details here. Gujjar Han (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

'Gurjara' is not 'Gurjar' or 'Gujjar'? Yeah Right!

It doesnt take a lot to figure out how the term 'Gurjara' became 'Gurjar' and 'Gujjar'. Look at 'Bharata' and 'Bharat', to suggest that 'Bharata' is a different word than 'Bharat' because the former has an "a" at the end, would be a very ignorant statement showing complete lack of knowledge about Sanskrit,. The 'Gurjaras' are the ancestors of the present day 'Gujjars' is accepted by an overwhelming majority of the academic sources, and is acknowledged by the State of Gujarat, and the Anthropological Survery of India. Lets get real and not rob a people of their very identity.

References

Axtramedium (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Those two sources are useless. We routinely reject the "states series" of The People of India (see the archives at WP:RSN for some past discussions, for example), and government websites are notoriously crap for matters relating to history etc - they love to make pseudo-historical claims and to plagiarise the works of very poor writers from the Raj era. Even if they were valid sources, we can't simply over-rule alternate points of view that have been presented by other reliable sources - see WP:NPOV. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: First of all, you should note that if you type "Gurjara" in Wikipedia's search bar, you are landed on the Gurjar artile. Other than that, I have never read any reliable source which "disputes" the fact that Gurjaras and Gurjars are not the same people. And as far as I am aware, no one has provided any reliable sources on this talk page asserting that.

On one hand you accuse me of rejecting 'other point of views', and on the other, you go ahead and do just the same. The Government of Gujarat's "interpretation" is crap, the Anthropological Survey of India is "useless". Your inconsistency is appalling. Please enlighten us to the reliable sources which entertain the assertion that Gurjaras and Gurjars are not the same people! Axtramedium (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That someone may have created a poor redirect from Gurjara to Gurjar doesn't make it a valid connection. After all, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. And there have been hundreds, probably thousands, of poorly-informed Gurjar opinion-pushers trying to promote glorifying claims about their caste here without much attention being paid to our policies etc.

It isn't my role to tell you where to look for decent sources, although I can tell you which ones have been rejected by consensus of the community here. Indeed, I just have done. My suggestion to you is to stick to serious academic works, published by respected academic presses in the last 40 years or so. Even then you might occasionally end up in a dispute but the chances are very much slimmer. And remember, the "states series" of AnSI is not a serious academic work and has already been rejected by the community. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added the {{verification failed}} tag because the source does not support the assertion that the ancient Gurjaras were ancestors of Rajputs (which is what the article currently says).

As for the identification of "Gurjara" with modern Gujjars, that is a different topic altogether, and has been discussed several times in the past. As Sitush states, there are many points of view. One of them is that Gurjara was name of a land, not people. You cannot ignore these alternate theories, and keep pushing the point of view which is favourable to your own opinion. utcursch | talk 18:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: Congratulations on you 'quick work' in fixing the "wrong redirect" (of Gurjara to Gurjar article). Thanks for giving us a detailed explanation backed by reliable sources on why that redirect was "wrong". Great consistency in your views!

Ofcourse your job is not to explain anything, but to revert everything that I have already explained in detail. On that too, good job! Axtramedium (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Snark will get you nowhere. You're one of hundreds who have tried that on me. Look, you're on pretty dodgy territory because of the past warnings, edit warring and notification of special sanctions that was issued to you some time ago. It would be in your best interest to attempt to collaborate rather than make snarky comments. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: Lets not get it twisted. YOU reverted my change, and made the claim their are "reliable sources" which prove otherwise. I asked for those sources, and told you as far as I am aware there are no sources listed on the talk page which assert that. YOU said its not your job to do that. So once again, its YOU whose meddling in my business without offering any academic sources, not me. Once again, I will ask you to list those "reliable sources" if you know them. I have explained each and every edit I have made so far, contrary to what you are implying in your baseless accusations and aggressive threats. Axtramedium (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Utcursch: " ... We do know for certain that the various Rajasthani tribes, including the Gurjara and the Pratihara ... vaunted their martial qualities, in order to be recognized as the Kshatriya Rajputs. With their enhanced status Gurjara-Pratihara made a significantly tactical move ..."

The author is clearly implying that the Gurjara and Pratiharas were a foriegn people which became Kashtriya Rajputs. He believes Gurjara and Pratihara were two allied groups, and when he says "with their enhanced status .. Gurjara-Pratihara", he means to say they were successfull in changing their status, i.e. in becoming Kshatriya Rajputs. And before they were known as Rajputs, they were known as Gurjaras and Pratiharas.

Please explain how you disagree with this.

Furthermore, dont confuse the two different issues of "the origin of Gurjaras" and the "identification of ancient Gujjars". Even if the people known as Gurjara were known so because they belonged to Gurjara Desa ("land"), it doesnt change the fact that Gurjars are the modern descendants of those ancient Gurjaras. K.M. Munshi never denied that Gurjars are the descendants of the ancient Gurjaras. In fact, he calls Gurjaras by the name Gurjar. Axtramedium (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The sources for what is said are in the article. I ask you again to read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Find some sources that are reliable and you are welcome to discuss inclusion of a statement that, say, "some historians believe the Gurjaras to be antecedents of the Gurjar caste". - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

On page 205, the author explicitly states that the Gurjara and the Pratihara were two distinct groups; both were part of a larger federation of tribes, some of which came to be known as Rajputs. On page 206, he says that the Pratiharas (not Gurjaras) assimilated into the Aryan fold to be recognized as "kshatriya Rajputs".

The statement in the article (now removed), which I disputed, claimed that the Gurjara were ancestors of modern-day Rajputs. The book doesn't support that statement. Your interpretation is your own original research.

As for the "descendants" claim, I've already mentioned this: there are many different points of view, and you can't keep pushing your favorite one. utcursch | talk 19:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: I find it amusing that a person who wasnt even aware why this dynasty is called Gurjara Pratihara is trying to advise me on academic studies. You are riding the wave that there is a lack of recent academic sources on this subject. Blatantly ignoring the fact that the majority of the academic authors who have written on this subject in detail agree that Gurjara and Gujjar are same people, and that the Pratiharas were part of Gurjara/Gujjar ethnicity. It is because of this very fact that this dynasty came to be known as Gurjara Pratihara, a fact which you evidently didnt know, and tried to dispute, until I educated you on the subject. So dont tell me what I am entitled to say here, you're no authority on this subject by a large stretch.

My information is based on the writings of several imminent authors, including but not limited to, Alexander Cunningham, V.A. Smith, A.M.T. Jackson, Rudolf Hoernle, Georg Buhler, R.C. Majumdar, D.R. Bhandarkar, B.N. Puri, R.S. Tripathi, D.C. Sircar, and K.M. Munshi. The works of these authors are considered the most authoritative on this subject, as no recent author can escape being dependent on the information compiled by these very authors. Its a shame that you are trying to conceal from readers the prevalent viewpoint among these authors . The fact that you have the audacity to say that I am "welcome to discuss inclusion of a statement that, say, "some historians believe the Gurjaras to be antecedents of the Gurjar caste", shows your lack of knowledge about this subject. If you knew anything about the viewpoints presented in "academic studies", and were indeed honest in quantifying them according to their real proportions, you would have said "majority of the historians" not "some historians".

Here is what a real representation of the academic sources would look like. "According to the majority of the historians Gurjaras are an ancient tribal people, the ancestors of the modern-day Gujjars, who came to prominence around the Huna invasion. They are thought to be an allied group of the invading Hunas, and are presumed to be Scythians by origin. However, there are some historians who dispute these theories. They argue that Gurjaras are a native people of India, who were known so because they belonged to the kingdom called Gurjara or Gurjaradesa (Gurjara country). According to them, Gurjara was first and foremost the name of a kingdom, and the people (its residents) came to be known after it."

I reckon that this would be a true representation of the actual historiography of the Gurjara Pratihara dynasty, in line with WP:NPOV, where the dominant viewpoint deserves the first and foremost attention. Right now I am fairly busy, but rest assure that I will fix these issues on my first convenience. Axtramedium (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2016

(UTC)

You seem to be suggesting we should use quite a few sources that the community has rejected, including at WP:RSN. AS for your promise to "fix these issues on my first convenience", well, you will do no such thing without consensus. Or, rather, you can try but you will almost certainly end up being sanctioned if you persist in defying said consensus. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Utcursch: First of all, I never said Gurjaras are the ancestors of the Rajputs and Gurjars, but predecessors. There is a difference, and you should take that into consideration. Secondly, the author is clearly implying that Gurjara-Pratiharas were among those foreign tribes that wanted, and were successful in achieving, an "enhanced status" i.e. becoming kshatriya Rajputs. He does say Pratiharas pressed for this more than others, but then he says "with their enhanced status", and there he mentions both Gurjaras and Pratiharas ("Gurjara-Pratiharas made a crucial move"), which means he is including Gurjaras in the ones who had achieved an "enhanced status".

He is writing under the pretense that Rajasthan had become home to the foreign tribes which landed here during the Huna invasion. A theory which I personally disagree with, but has held the field of thought for the longest. A byproduct of this theory is that these "mleechas" were looked down by the "natives", headed by the Brahmins, and hence, these mleechas tried their best to incorporate themselves into the "Aryan Hindu fold". That is where the myths like Agnikula legend come in place and rescue this theory of its inherent absurdity. Axtramedium (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea who "the author" is supposed to be. Leave that, as it may, BD Chattopadhyaya, quoted below, says that the origin of the Rajput clans is a "red herring." We shouldn't waste time on this red herring. (I notice that you haven't yet bothered to learn how to indent posts. Please see WP:TPHELP.)-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No reason to get confused. Please read the Bilingual old Kannada-Sanskrit inscription (866 AD) from Nilgund of Rashtrakuta King Amoghavarsha.

Amoghavarsha mentions that his father Govinda III subjugated the Gurjar of Chitrakuta.

@Utcursch @Sitush MaverickDelhi (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Utcursch MaverickDelhi (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

User@Utcursch MaverickDelhi (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

User@Utcursch MaverickDelhi (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

User@Utcursch MaverickDelhi (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

search in google "gurjar samrat mihir bhoj park" And ""gurjar samrat mihir bhoj marg"

Its in Delhi and Noida that clearly states Gurjar-Prathihar empire relates to Gujjar \ Gurjar tribe only, and the empire king Mihir Bhoj was Gujjar.

MaverickDelhi (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Just work on ground level my dear.

Just writing a book does not create a history. It is mentioned all over the stones and stuff found from the historcal sites.

That is why govt of india / delhi and uttar pradesh Noida made the Park and Marg (Highway) MaverickDelhi (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Just search in google -

"gurjar samrat mihir bhoj park"

And

"gurjar samrat mihir bhoj marg" MaverickDelhi (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

And stop creating myth or confusion over web, because on ground level it is clear. MaverickDelhi (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Governments do a lot of things to appease their caste-based votebanks. For Wikipedia, please see WP:HISTRS.

The imperial Pratihara kings did not call themselves "Gurjaras": the term "Gurjara" is used for them only by their neighbours. While a section of historians have theorized that "Gurjara" was the name of the tribe/ethinc group they belonged to (presumably same as modern Gujjars), others have proposed that they were so called simply because they ruled the Gurjara region, which was so called even before their rule. There is no certainty regarding this. For example, see Exploding the Myth of the Gūjara Identity of the Imperial Pratihāras. utcursch | talk 15:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

http://www.gurjardesh.org/introduction.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaverickDelhi (talk • contribs) 10:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

My dear go to below link too.

http://www.gurjardesh.org/introduction.htm

utcursch | talk

Sitush (talk)

Any why in the Akhshrdham mandir, Delhi it is written as "गुर्जर सम्राट मिहिर भोज Gurjar Samrat Mihir Bhoj" over the statue. The same statue displayed in wiki page of Mihir Bhoj.

And that highway is just attached to temple गुर्जर सम्राट मिहिर भोज मार्ग

"Just for the vote bank indian govt placed that statue in temple"  ??

Anyway let it be, everybody know who was Mihir Bhoj and about his empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaverickDelhi (talk • contribs) 10:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Origin of Gurjara Pratihara

--Georgian origin-- Dr. Huthi of Georgia paid a visit to India in 1967 and studied the Gujars living in northern India. He has stated that there are Georgian tribes among the Indian Gujars, because their accent, their dress, and their bullock carts resemble those of Georgians. Oral traditions of the tribe and some archaeological evidence (particularly cultural and phonetic) suggest that the word Gujar is a derivation of Gurjara and sounds like "Gurjiya/Georgia " (Gurjiya or Gurjistan being the Persian name for Georgia) - indicating that the Gujar tribe is partially of Caucasian/Central Asian origin (Georgia-Chechnya etc). Dr. Huthi is of the view that they came to India when Timur held a reign of terror over them, and consequently they settled here. They came here to protect their lives and religion, and called themselves by the Persian word for "Georgian", "Gurjis". Later this word was presumably changed into "Gurjar" or "Gujjar" or "Gujur"(particularly in Afghanistan)

References

It is baseless just connecting the names. Because there is no evidence of people of gurji (sounding jurji ) now sounds jurjiya(Georgia)

Sagarbhati1998 (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Controversy: Were the Pratiharas "Gujjars" or "Rajputs"?

The old name of Rajasthan was "Gurjaratra" (which meant "the country ruled or protected by the Gujjars"), it was also known as "Gurjara Desa" and "Gurjara Mandala", and while not officially but in everyday language it was also called "Gurjara" for a short form. The obvious meanings of the terms Gurjaratra, Gurjara Desa, and Gurjara Mandala, point to the fact that the word "Gurjara" was used for a people, and the words "Tra" (protection), "Desa" (country), and "Mandala" (province) were used for their "land" or "kingdom" (for example, the English equivalent would be, "Gurjarland").

So the question arises, who were the "Gurjaras"? Now leaving aside the various theories on their origin, all historians agree -there is essentially a consensus among historians over this- that the ancient "Gurjaras" and the modern day "Gujjars" are one and the same people. So it would be accurate to say that the old Rajasthan was a "Gujjar Kingdom".

The same Gurjaras who established a kingdom in ancient Rajasthan and Gujarat, established another kingdom in Punjab and also named it Gurjaratra. The modern day remnants of that kingdom can still be seen in the places named "Gujrat" (which means "land protected by Gujjars"), "Gujranwala" (which means "the city of Gujjars"), and "Gujar Khan" (named after a Gujar king). Again, the names Gujrat, Gujranwala and Gujar Khan, make it amply clear that the word Gujjar is used to refer to a people, and it proves that "Gurjara" being the same word as "Gujjar" was also used to refer to a people. Furthermore, only the Gujjars call themselves Gujjar in Gujrat, Gujranwala, or Gujar Khan, all the other tribes call themselves with their own tribal names i.e. Jatt, Malik, etc. and when referring to their city of origin all including the Gujjars would call themselves Gujrati, Gujranwali, or Gujar Khani.

All the historic evidences - Rajor inscription, Pampa, Arab records, Rashtrakutta records- also point to the fact that the word Gurjara was used to refer to a "people", and not "land".

-What is the evidence that Pratiharas were Rajputs?-

The word Rajput is not even mentioned anywhere until the Mughal era. Which means Rajputs came to existence 400 years after the fall of the Gurjara Pratihara empire! Gujjars are the predecessors of the Rajputs, and hence, it is only the Gujjars who are concerned with the identity of the Gurjara Pratiharas not the Rajputs, as the Rajputs didn't even exist back then. It's quite surprising to see the Rajputs infer that Gurjara Pratihara empire was a "Rajput" dynasty!

This is really a straight forward matter, but only if you don't let your pride hinder your thinking capabilities.

--Axtramedium (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Though the word Rajput is of later origin, almost all contemporary Rajput caste had their own dynasty like Chauhan, Solanki, Guhilot, Parmars etc which dates long before the origin of the word Rajput most of them to 9th and 10th century. Just like that modern Parihar or Pratihar Rajputs are direct descendants of erstwhile Gurjar Pratihar dynasty which ruled over Gurjar desh. That's why Those Pratihar never mentioned themselves as Gurjar,only their rivals Pala and Rashtrakutas called them Gurjar Pratihar because these rivals considered them inferior belonging to such area of Gurjar desh. If they were Gurjar why didn't they mentioned themselves as Gurjars on the contrary they called themselves Pratihars.

They are Gurjars no doubt because many historian says that and we also know that historical it's proven so no need to debate on this topic my friend Axtramedium Nagar2996 (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not correct to say that the pratiharas never called them Gurjars. Because there are found 2 inscriptions in which gurjar pratiharas called themselves gurjar. Yes they mostly used pratiharas becouse they are protecting the country as a door man. Which is more proud ful title . But yes they called them gurjars and other dynasties aslo called them gurjars. So it can be fully concluded that they are Gurjars. Question should be. From where the gurjars came from Or why they called themselves gurjars..

 Sagarbhati1998 (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

What rubbish was that ? Are you even a historian ? Jeets2213 (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2021

For the better/wider "contextual" reading, please add the following at the top of "Conquest of Kannuaj and further expansion" section

See also: The Kannauj Triangle wars

Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It doesn't seem like there's much additional information in the section you'd like to link to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

The Kshatriya-Pratihara dynasty was an imperial power during the Late Classical period on the Indian subcontinent, that ruled much of Northern India from the mid-8th to the 11th century. They ruled first at Ujjain and later at Kannauj.[2]

Pratihara dynasty mid-8th century CE–1036 CE Extent of the Pratihara Empire Extent of the Pratihara Empire shown in green.[1] Capital Avanti Kannauj Common languages Sanskrit, Prakrit Religion Hinduism Government Monarchy • c. 730 – c. 760 Nagabhata I (first) • c. 1024 – c. 1036 Yasahpala (last) Historical era Late Classical India • Established mid-8th century CE • Conquest of Kannauj by Mahmud of Ghazni 1008 CE • Disestablished 1036 CE Preceded by Succeeded by Pushyabhuti dynasty Chandela dynasty Paramara dynasty Kalachuris of Tripuri Tomara dynasty Chavda dynasty Chahamanas of Shakambhari Ghurid dynasty

Today part of India The Pratiharas were instrumental in containing Arab armies moving east of the Indus River.[3] Nagabhata I defeated the Arab army under Junaid and Tamin in the Caliphate campaigns in India. Under Nagabhata II, the Pratiharas became the most powerful dynasty in northern India. He was succeeded by his son Ramabhadra, who ruled briefly before being succeeded by his son, Mihira Bhoja. Under Bhoja and his successor Mahendrapala I, the Pratihara dynasty reached its peak of prosperity and power. By the time of Mahendrapala, the extent of its territory rivalled that of the Gupta Empire stretching from the border of Sindh in the west to Bengal in the east and from the Himalayas in the north to areas past the Narmada in the south.[4][5] The expansion triggered a tripartite power struggle with the Rashtrakuta and Pala empires for control of the Indian Subcontinent. During this period, Imperial Pratihara took the title of Maharajadhiraja of Āryāvarta (Great King of Kings of India). Kshatriya-Pratihara are known for their sculptures, carved panels and open pavilion style temples. The greatest development of their style of temple building was at Khajuraho, now a UNESCO World Heritage Site.[6]

The power of the Kshatriya-Pratihara dynasty was weakened by dynastic strife. It was further diminished as a result of a great raid led by the Rashtrakuta ruler Indra III who, in about 916, sacked Kannauj. Under a succession of rather obscure rulers, the dynasty never regained its former influence. Their feudatories became more and more powerful, one by one throwing off their allegiance until, by the end of the 10th century, the dynasty controlled little more than the Gangetic Doab. Their last important king, Rajyapala, was driven from Kannauj by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1018.[5] Kpariharbharat (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It was wrong picked information by Wikipedia about Pratihara/Parihar dynasty, This dynasty is from Kshatriya-Pratihara Kpariharbharat (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Coinage

Strange that page of Mihira Bhoja has a coinage section while the dynasty page Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty doesn't have any. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Mahendrapala

There are new sources that state that Mahendrapala's kingdom did not stretch to Bengal, rather it was Mahendrapala the Pala king, who was confused for the other. Why is this info being removed again and again? Justnobodyhere (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Gurjar pratihar dynasty was gurjar dynasty.

Bhavaarth (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Gurjar pratihar were gurjar by caste not rajput Bhavaarth (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2022

2409:4051:4E86:BFD1:8C3A:5128:9171:25BA (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Gujra Pratihar were Gujjara Dyncity

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Why Are You Change Caste of Gurjar-Pratihar?

Gurjar-Pratihar belongs to the Gurjar Caste. then how can you say that they are belongs to Rajput Caste,Why? 2409:4042:31C:64E4:99E9:1ED9:4452:60E8 (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

Ajay Naagar (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

जैसा की सर्वविदित है कि अरब हमलावरो से लगभग 300 वर्षों तक हिन्दुस्तान को बचाये रखने वाले “गुर्जर प्रतिहार “ वंश के सम्राटों को विभिन्न समकालीन ग्रंथों, इतिहास की पुस्तकों,गज़ेटियर,शिलालेख व ताम्रपत्रों मे गुर्जर ही लिखा है। जिनके विवरण इस प्रकार है :-

(1) Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. 9 , Part 1.

इस गज़ेटियर के पेज नंबर 469 - 502 तक Appendix B. मे “The Gujar” अध्याय हैं। इस अध्याय में गुर्जर जाति के उत्पत्ति,शासक ,गोत्र, प्रवास का ज़िक्र है। साथ ही गुर्जर शब्द का अर्थ बताया गया है कि गुर्जर या गूजर एक जाति है। और गुर्जरों से ही राजपूत के कई वंश की उत्पत्ति है।

साथ ही बताया गया कि गुर्जरों की उपाधि “मिहिर “ भी है। गुर्जर सम्राट मिहिर भोज (836-885 ई.) को गुर्जर या गूजर राजा बताया गया है। साथ ही लिखा है कि सहारनपुर में गुजरात है और पंजाब में भी गुजरात है और ग्वालियर में गुर्जर गढ़, पंजाब के गुजराँवाला आदि का वर्णन किया है।

(2) Jhansi gazetteer Vol 24

पेज नंबर 181 पर कहा गया है कि राजा तोरमन के समकालीन ग्रंथों व शिलालेखों में गुर्जर , जिन्हें गूजर भी कहा जाता है, का विवरण है।

आगे लिखा है परिहार राजपूत Gurjar or Gujar stock से ही है। लिखा है कि कि इसी गुर्जर या गूजर वंश के प्रतापी राजा नागभट्ट -1 (810ई . व मिहिरभोज (840-90) बहुत शक्तिशाली राजा हुए हैं।

(3) Farrukhabad gazetteer Vol. 9 वर्ष 1911.

पेज नंबर 121 पर लिखा है कि गुर्जरों के राजा नागभट्ट-2 ने कन्नौज को अपनी राजधानी बनाया। इनका मूल गुर्जर जाति से है। नागभट्ट के पोते मिहिरभोज ने फिर से कन्नौज को शक्तिशाली राज्य बना दिया।

(4) Rajputana gazetteer Vol. 2 वर्ष 1879

पेज नंबर 39 पर लिखा है कि गुर्जरों की उपाधि “ मिहिर “ होती हैं।

(5) Imperial Gazetteer of India, Central India वर्ष 1908

पेज नंबर 18 में लिखा है कि पाँचवीं,छठी शताब्दी में मे गुर्जर (Gurjara) जाति ने मध्य एशिया से प्रवेश किया आठवीं शताब्दी तक गुर्जर जाति के राजपूताना और पश्चिमी हिस्से बसे होने के कारण गुजरात कहा जाने लगा।

बुंदेलखंड व मालवा के परिहार व परमार राजपूत भी गुर्जर वंश से है। गुर्जर सम्राट मिहिर भोज 885 ई. में मृत्यू के बाद गुर्जर साम्राज्य बिखर गया।

(6) Saharanpur Gazetteer Vol. 2 , 1921

पेज नंबर 101 पर लिखा:- The Gurjaras are identical with the Gurjar, Gujar of the old days the ancestor of the modern parihar Rajput. Saharanpur was commonly known as Gujarat.

(7) Jalaun Gazetteer Vol. 25 , 1909

पेज नंबर 115 पर लिखा है कि 500 ई. में जब तोरमन और मिहिरकुल शासन कर रहे थे तब गुर्जर (Gurjar) आसपास के क्षेत्रों में आकर बस गये।

(8) The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India, Vol. 3 , 1916

पेज नंबर 166-75 तक गुर्जर जाति के बारे में विस्तृत जानकारी दी गई है। जिसमें बताया गया है कि गुर्जरों के बसने के कारण ही गुजरात, गुजराँवाला, और ग्वालियर के गुर्जर गढ़ आदि का नामकरण इसी जाति के नाम पर हुआ। स्पष्ट किया गया कि Gujar or Gurjara शब्द गूजर जाति के लिए प्रयोग किये जाते है। जो पूरानी जाति है। इसी जाति के राजा मिहिरभोज (840-90) को गुर्जर प्रतिहार संबोधित किया तथा बताया कि प्रतिहार व परिहार भी गुर्जर जाति के लिए संबोधन किए जाते है। स्पष्ट किया है कि Partihara( Parihar) Clan of Gurjara Tribe of Cast and consequently known clan of Parihar Rajput is a branch of Gurjara or Gujar Stock.

(9) हिमाचल प्रदेश सरकार के Planning Department,Shimla,1710002 ने गुर्जरों पर एक सामाजिक आर्थिक सर्वेक्षण कर रिपोर्ट तैयार की,यह रिपोर्ट आज भी संबंधित विभाग के वेबसाइट पर उपलब्ध है। इसमें लिखा है कि गुर्जर एक लड़ाकू क्षत्रिय जाति है , गुर्जर की उपाधि मिहिर भी है।

गुर्जर,गुज्जर,गूजर का शाब्दिक अर्थ एक ही है। गुर्जर,गूजर जाति के लोगों के बसने के स्थान को गुजरात,गुजराँवाला,गुर्जरदेश आदि कहा गया है।

(10). सिक्ख गुर्जरों पर UNESCO की Global Prayer Digest-2011 की रिपोर्ट में गुर्जरों को क्षत्रिय बता कर उत्पत्ति का भी विवरण दिया है। तथा यह भी बताया है कि गुजरात नामक स्थान का नामकरण गुर्जर जाति के बसने के कारण हुआ है।

(11) Linguistic Survey of India Vol. 9 , Indo - Aryan Family, Central Group,Part 4

पेज नंबर 8-16 पर “The Gurjara “ शीर्षक से गुर्जर जाति के बारे में बताया गया है कि गुर्जर या गुज्जर, गूजर शब्द गुर्जर जाति के लिए प्रयोग किये गये हैं। गुजरात, गुजराँवाला आदि स्थानों का नाम गुर्जर जाति के विध्यमान होने पर यह नामकरण हुआ। गुर्जर का शाब्दिक अर्थ शत्रु विनाशक बताया है। गुर्जरों को देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में बसाया बताया। गुर्जर शासकों नागभट्ट, वत्सराज,,व्याग्रहामुख, कन्नौज के राजा मिहिरभोज (840-90) को गुर्जर जाति से बताया। गुर्जरों द्वारा गुर्जरी भाषा का विस्तृत विवरण दिया है। तथा प्रतिहार व परिहार एवं परमार को भी गुर्जर जाति का होना बताया है।

(12) Jat ,Gujar and Ahir ,

A Martial Race रिपोर्ट मे A H BIngley

लेखक ने पेज नंबर 7 पर , गुर्जर जाति के उत्पत्ति संबंधी विवरण दिए हैं। बताया कि गुर्जरों ने दक्षिण में सिन्धु घाटी में स्थापित होकर सौराष्ट्र बसाया जिसे तब गुजरात कहा जाने लगा। काबुल ,कंधार ,कश्मीर, उत्तरी पंजाब बसे गुर्जरों के स्थान को गुजराँवाला व गुजरात और गुर्जरदेश कहा गया।

(13) The Imperial Gazetteer of India. , The Indian Empire vol. 2 pg 307-18.

ताम्रपत्र में जिनमें गुर्जर जाति का विवरण है।

1. सज्जन ताम्रपत्र

2. बड़ौदा ताम्रपत्र

3. माने ताम्रपत्र

4. बामुग्रा ताम्रपत्र महिपाल (915) को दहाड़ता गुर्जर कहा है।

5. खजुराहो अभिलेख (925-50)यशोवर्मन को प्रतिहारों के लिए झंझावत व गुर्जरों के लिए अग्नि के समान बताया है।

शिलालेख

1. करडाह

2. राधनपुर

3. नीलगुण्ड

4. देवली

5. बादल स्तम्भ लेख के श्लोक नंबर 13 मे गुर्जर राजा, गुर्जर नाथ का वर्णन है।

6. सिरूर शिलालेख यह शिलालेख गोविन्दा -3 व गुर्जर नागभट्ट -2 के युद्ध का वर्णन है जिसमें नागभट्ट को गुर्जरान ,,गुर्जर राजा,गुर्जर सैनिक,गुर्जर जाति,गुर्जर राज्य का उल्लेख है।

राजौर के अभिलेखों में कन्नौज व उज्जैन के प्रतिहार को गुर्जर कहा है।

चन्देल शिलालेखों में गुर्जर प्रतिहार कहा है।

ऐहोल ,नवसारी शिलालेखों में इन्हें गुर्जेश्वर कहा है।

जोधपुर व घटियाला के शिलालेख से प्रकट होता है कि गुर्जर प्रतिहार का मूल स्थान गुर्जरात्र था।

ग्रंथों में गुर्जर विवरण।

1. कवि पम्पा द्वारा लिखित “विक्रमार्जुन विजय” में तत्कालीन गुर्जर प्रतिहार सम्राट महिपाल (912-44) को गुर्जर राजा कहा है।

2. अरब यात्री अलमसूदी (915ई.) भारत यात्रा के दौरान सम्राट महिपाल के दरबार में रहा। उसने “मजरूल- जुहाब नामक ग्रंथ लिखा उसने महिपाल को वोरा व इस वंश को अल-जुर्ज (गुर्जर) कहा है।

3. कल्हण के बारहवीं सदी में लिखे ग्रंथ राजतरंगिणी प्रतिहार को गुर्जर कहा है।

4. स्कन्ध पुराण के प्रभास खंड में वर्णन है। मार्कण्डेय पुराण व पंचतंत्र में भी गुर्जर जन जाति के प्रमाण है।

5. हर्षचरित में लेखक बाण ने भी गुर्जर जाति का वर्णन किया है।

गुर्जर जाति के होने से गुजरात नामक स्थान का होना। Bombay Gazetteer vol 9 part 1 पेज नंबर 482 व 101 पर सहारनपुर व पंजाब प्रांत में गुर्जर जाति बसे होने के कारण गुजरात बताया गया।

जिन पुस्तकों में गुर्जरों की उत्पत्ति,गुर्जर जाति व गुर्जर,गूजर,गुज्जर शब्द का एक ही अर्थ है। तथा गुर्जर जाति के शासकों के वर्णन है। व गुर्जर जाति के बसने के कारण ही गुजरात व गुजराँवाला जैसे अनेकों स्थानों के नाम पड़े उनका विवरण इस प्रकार है।

1. The History of the Gurjara-Pratiharas :- (Dr. B N Puri)

2. Ashort History of India:- (W H Moreland) pg no. 114

3. Cambridge History of India:-(Allan J ) pg 104.

4. Comprehensive History of India,part 1. Pg 49 & 141.

5. Early History of India, 4th Edition:-(V A Smith) pg 4-5 , 427-28

6. Al-Hind :-(Andre Wink) pg 277-303.

7. The Gurjara Pratihar and Their Times:-(V B Mishra) pg 29

8. History of India part 1 :- (R D Mukharji) pg 140-41.

9. D R Bhandarkar Volume. Edited by Bimla Churn Law.

10. Ancient India and South Indian History & Culture. :-(Dr. S Krishanasvami Aiyangar) pg 326-370

11. Indian Village Community:-(B H Baden -Powell)pg 101-102.

12. मध्य क़ालीन भारत:-( हरिश्चंद्र वर्मा) पेज 5-17

13. The Gujar Settlement:- ( D S Manku ) All pages.

14. History of Kanauj :- R S Tripathi) ph 78, 110,191,221-22,226-27,241,267,271,274.

15. जाति व्यवस्था:-(सच्चिदानन्द सिन्हा) पेज 84-85

16. प्राचीन एवं मध्यकालीन भारत का इतिहास। :- डा. कमल भारद्वाज।

17. जाति व्यवस्था:( नर्मदेशवर प्रसाद) पेज 43,74,75

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2022

Gurjar Partihar Dynasty page provides wrong information for Gurjar Partihar Dynasty, Gurjar Partihar Dynasty is not belong to Rajput community, Gurjar Partihar Dynasty is belong to Gurjar community, we have many evidence, they are belong to Gurjar community so requested to you please change the community of Gurjar Partihar Dynasty. Gurjaratra (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2022 (2)

Gurjar Partihar Dynasty as the following page provides wrong information for Gurjar Partihar Dynasty, Gurjar Partihar Dynasty is not belong to Rajput Dynasty, Gurjar Partihar Dynasty is belong to Gurjar dynasty we have many evidence, they are belong to Gurjar community so requested to you please change the community of Gurjar Partihar Dynasty.

Please check following refrences where you can check there Gurjar Partihar Dynasty belongs to Gurjar dynasty not from Rajput. So, we request you please remove the wrong information from the article and update given information on the following page.

This is wrong information: The Gurjara-Pratihara was a Rajput dynasty[5][6][7] that ruled much of Northern India from the mid-8th to the 11th century. They ruled first at Ujjain and later at Kannauj.[8]

This is correct information: The Gurjara-Pratihara was a Gurjar Dynasty that ruled much of Northern India from the mid-8th to the 11th century. They ruled first at Ujjain and later at Kannauj.[4]

Please check these given refrences. Along with this

1. Puri, Baij Nath (1957), The history of the Gurjara-Pratihāras

2. The Eighth Avatar By Manoshi Sinha Rawal

Today, the Yamuna has changed her course beyond several miles. Originally, Gurjar are believed to be cowherds. Nandvash houses the Gurjar folks in great numbers. Gurjar also ruled kingdoms from time to time, worth mentioning are Gurjar Pratihar Dynasty (ruled major parts of northern india from the 8th to 11th centuries), Anangpal I & II, to name a few.

3.History of Sirsa Town By Jugal Kishore Gupta 24, 25

4. Rural Life: Grass Roots Perspectives By Brij Raj Chauhan 116

5. Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty By The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Gurjaratra (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

All kinds of interpretations are possible. That is why no castes should be mentioned in the leads of historical pages. I removed the current castecrut. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

There are no interpretation, Gurjara Pratihara being a Rajput dynasty is common knowledge, their origin is certainly disputed though, that is matter of origin. Sajaypal007 (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Multiple new accounts and IPs are either requesting edits or asking other editors on talk page to edit for themselves, I suspect this might be a case of meat. Simultaneous multiple attempts by different new accounts, posting same copy pasted material and pushing for same kind of changes, asking multiple editors to do the edits on their behalf, it all adds up. Sajaypal007 (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

"Rajput dynasty"

The castecruft of "Rajput dynasty" was added a couple of weeks ago, to the lead sentence, defying consensus of the page since 2004. There is an entire page on the Origin of the Gurjara-Pratiharas, discussing all the historical viewpoints. Has anybody read it?

What goes into the lead is not determined by "sourcing", but by editorial consensus of what belongs in the lead. Caste-related mentions are never admitted in the lead unless they are the most notable aspects of subject. For Gurjara-Pratiharas, that is definitely not the case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Please provide of the relevant consensus. If I am aware there was some kind of consensus on caste of ruler, didn't hear any on dynasty. By the way this is not castecruft but sourced one. As I already explained on my talk page why Origin and identity both can be different, and the page is about Origin of the dynasty and if its not notable then why historians seems to mention Rajput even introducing the dynasties. Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Please state why the word Rajput doesn't belong in the lead, as you stated? Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I concur with Kautliya3 on this bit, the origin of this dynasty is a contentious issue and some dated colonial transliterations didn't help the case either which were reproduced by some modern scholars like Puri & Majumdar. As, I explained in my revert summary few hours ago; diff. It's bit controversial to label them as Rajputs unlike other Rajput houses of Sisodias, Cahmanas (Sambhar, Jalore, Nadol), Paramaras, Bhattis, Rathores etc.

Sajaypal007: I don't see a issue in removing Rajput dynasty term from this dynasty page alone. I myself reversed vandal attempts on other Rajput clans but in these case, I am ambivalent on their status, that too in lead ? Packer&Tracker (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Origin issue has been somewhat tackled by some modern research in this field with use of new found Gallaka inscription by SR Sharma which is a bit underrepresented on this page I think, but anyway as I explained earlier on my talk page as well, this was never a question about origin. Anyway if people feel this way, I won't press the matter further specially for the lead, as I am a little busy these days, I will ping both of you when I get time to pursue this wholeheartedly. Sajaypal007 (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

No issues, as the matter stand; any caste label (Rajput) won't be presented in case of this dynasty; Thanks. Packer&Tracker (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 June 2022

Request you please remove 5th number refence as there is no evidence that rajput community exist before 13th century. Gurjaratra (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I want to add a vansavli give by nagor royal family

Respected

                 Writer of Gurjara Pratihar 
                 Wekeepedia page 

I am Mohit Kumar Singh from Madhya Pradesh. I want to add a vansavli given by crown Prince of nagor so please remove extended protection for a week MOHIT KUMAR SINGH SISODIYA rajput (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is not the place for such content. Please see WP:DUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Gurjara is not a cast but a place.

Gurjara is not a cast but a place Chauhan.wiki (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2023

Pratiharas are a famous Rajput clan.I think it is an important information and should be included in the introductory section. Please refer the historical work of Shanta Rani Sharma for this. Abhimanyu200 (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2024

Change "Rajapala" to "Rajyapala" in the section under the heading "List of rulers"

Reason: Spelling of the ruler Rajyapala is mentioned as "Rajyapal" in introductory section as well as on other wikipedia pages. CtrlFreak578 (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

 Question: which of the two is correct? M.Bitton (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)