Talk:Rajput/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Treachery
2 Shivraj
3 Offer...
4 Shiv & Others
5 A Possible Compromise?
6 War or Truce?
7 Editing Offensive Comments
8 Lets take examples of other ethnic groups
9 Census and the argument so far
10 Protected
11 Claims of Iranians being rajputs

Treachery

Remember you posted in your article that the generals and emperors comitted treachery when they deceived their opponents in the war and you were very adamant about that. I wonder how do you justify your adopting different names, using IP addresses and not your name and similar tactics, not to win an empire but to prove your point that you alone think is right. While doing so you lie and avoid facts. So why shouldn't we call it "Treachery"?

One more thing, "Are you a Shiv-Sainic"?

خرم Khurram 19:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Khurram posted this on my talk page and I am copying it here so that all who hold his view can be challenged at the same time

Remember treachery is not there in rajput blood. My ip address is 203.101* (last part is different based on DHCP if you know what that means). Prove that any of these other addresses belong to me and I will quit coming to wikipedia. If you cannot prove your allegation, then you, zora, and whoever else is making these accusations should stop coming here.

Do you have the guts to accept this?

Shivraj Singh 19:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

So you ccept that the IP 203..... is yours and do you claim that you never did multiple edits using your name and the IP interchangeably to avoid ban?

What about the other question being a "Shiv-Sainic"? Are you?

خرم Khurram 19:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes I forget to login and I get assigned a different IP address.

But you are claiming that 61*, 217* , cheerful honey are same as me and I am challenging you and your buddies to prove it and if u cannot do not show ur face here.

Shivraj

Ahmmmm,

So you are saying that it happens just by coincidence and not on purpose that you first make changes using the IP address and other times by your name?

You didn't answer my second question. Maybe you can't read it. Can you? ;)

خرم Khurram 19:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Though I am forcing myself now to make sure that I am logged in before I save a page. But your real issue is not 203* ip address. You knew all along that it belongs to me. Your concern is these other guys (217*, 61*, Coolcat, cheerful honey etc). And I also know you and your buddies do not have the courage to accept my challenge. Now you will keep asking stupid questions till this challenge to you and ur buddies is archived. You are very predictable.

Shivraj Singh 20:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat is surely not you. I don't know about cheerful honey, but I sure am suspicious about 217.* and 61.* that they are you. Anybody can have suspicions. As far as the challenge goes, I didn't make any claim that I will stop coming here and I can never allow you to enforce anything onto me. We will see what we can find out ;). All that I know is that you are first one that I know who "accidently" forgets to log in and uses IP address for multiple edits in the same article. Also what increases my and I believe other people's suspicions is that the other . . . editors never gave their names. It can be true that you are not them but it can be true otherwise as well.

As far as the "stupid" questioning goes, I think a simple "Yes" or "No" can suffice but you want to avoid that question. Don't we know why ;)

Come on speak up my Rajput friend. خرم Khurram 20:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I am speaking for last half an hour. You put a message on my talk page about treachery and when you are asked to put your money where your mouth is you want to back down? You know if you make a false allegation it is actually quite serious . So be careful.

Shivraj Singh 20:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Listen Shivraj,

As far as my claim is concerned, you have affirmed that you use your name and IP address alternatevly although you said that you do it "accidently". So I have my mouth where my money is and I didn't make any false allegation so please use some logic before commenting on anything.

As per your claim, let me ask you a simple question, "Do you claim that you have different biological father than all of those other editors that use IP addresses rather than their names including that honey guy?" If you say "Yes" to me you are none of them.

And by your constantly avoiding my second question I think it is safe to conclude that you are a "Shiv-sainic". Right?

خرم Khurram 20:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You can change colors only so many times. 203.101* is not the issue. Issue is 61*,217* etc. You and your buddies are now worried because some rajputs have started showing up here so you want to discredit me. But it is not going to work.

It also seems you are having difficulty parsing English. I guess that is because you have just studied in a Madarsa.

Shiv Sena is a political party and I am not affiliated to that. But what is the relevance of this question to this discussion? You keep asking stupid questions.

Shivraj Singh 03:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Shivraj

I find the claim by mohammedans that Shivraj is using multiple pseudonyms to strengthen his postion totally distasteful. But it also shows that these mohammedans are now at their wits end. They do not have any logical arguments left so they are down to levelling level foul charges. Shame on all these pakis!!! Keep the flag flying Shiv.

Sisodia

I'm editing the above comment as it states some typical racist, prejudiced bias that we've come to expect from the sock puppets. Great points, but Shiv hasn't answered the questions I posed to him over a month ago, how will he answer your's Khurram,lol! Evasive Shiv. --Raja 08:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Offer...

as far as im concerned I am only intersted to write here Rajputs are muslims also.

shiv if you accept this that rajputs are muslims also, then im not going to revert any of your edit. but if you don't accept that Rajputs are muslims also then I will go on reverting your edits.

and to prove that Rajputs are muslims also, I need NO BOOK REFERNCES. I meant this offer only in Good faith.

I need answer in YES or NO. - NO ARGUMENTS

and I think user other then shiv are also editing this page, if anon user are reading please login to wikipedia, so that we can hear clearly what you have to say.

الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 10:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wisesabre historically speaking the correct statment is "some rajputs converted to islam" and I do mention that on the article page.

Shivraj Singh 18:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Shiv & Others

Shiv,

First of all, you said that you are not any of them, I told you that I will take your word for it and I have. Secondly, I am not worried about any Tom, Dick and harry showing up on this page. There is no purer Rajput than myself or Raja or any other Muslim Rajput and we maintain it.

Thirdly, you don't need to worry about my education. It is surely much more than that of yours.

The reason of asking that question regarding being a "Shiv-Sainic" was that the posts of yours and those of your "friends" are full of Muslim hatred, hallmark of "Singh parivaar". I will really be amazed if you don't follow the ideas of any of them. BTW do you remember what question you left on Raja's talk page?

It is obvious who is worried here. Do not get personal. Nasty things can be said which will be hard for you to handle. Uptil now I have been you giving benefit of doubt and I am not equating stupid questions to stupidity but you are right on the edge now.

Shivraj Singh 18:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sisodia,

So now we have a name for you. Wouldn't it be nice if you create a user name and passsword?

As far as us being down to our wits is concerned, we have plenty of them left and if they are to run out, it wouldn't be ours (I assure you). In the meantime please read the "Glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and NWFP" printed by The Language Department of Punjab in 1970 that is based upon the census data of 1883 and 1892. That read will clearly show you that the points that you are trying to make didn't even exist till way after 1947. All your points that you are claiming are without any logic and any historical evidence whatsoever. Fenatic materials and myths can not change facts. Being Rajput of Muslim Rajputs have never been disputed in the history and the attempts to consider them not being one will never succeed today.

خرم Khurram 14:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Your wits have run out. Stop accusing others and contribute atleast a single sentence which is historically correct.

Shivraj Singh 18:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Shiv,

Is it really you who wrote it? I am Worried? for what? Let me laugh a bit............... Ahmmm!!! Now; nasty things, are there any left? BTW tell me where did I get personal? Benefit of doubt? About what? Come on buddy please be straight. How and when did you give "anyone" benefit of doubt? I had a suspicion and so did other editors, I asked you, you implied (since you didn't say "Yes" or "No" I took it as "Yes" giving YOU the benefit of doubt) that you have different "biological" father than all of the other editors who edit the page with an IP other than 203.101.xxx.xxx and I said ok, you are not any of them. As far as being personal is concerned it is not me, you don't trust me, go and ask other editors.

Coooooool "historically correct". Now what "history" are we talking about here? Please read the book mentioned above, it has quite a lot of history in it. For your convenience and that of others let me briefly point out some points regarding it.

1. It is based upon the census data of 1883 and 1892, first ever done in the Indian sub-continent.

2. It has been published by "The Languages Department of Punjab, India" in 1970, way after partition.

3. It gives detailed description of castes in the Punjab and NWFP at that time and includes both Muslim and Non-Muslim Rajputs and other castes.

4. It doesn't say anywhere that Hindu Rajputs do not consider Muslim Rajputs as legitimate Rajputs (not even once and there are hundreds of gots mentioned along with different pedigrees).

5. It gives the names of the Muslim Saints and the names of the leaders of the tribe who were converted by them including the time periods.

خرم Khurram 19:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

A Possible Compromise?

To whomsoever it may concern,

     The main conflict of interest I have seen so far relates to whether Muslims claiming "Rajput" heritage should be accorded it or not. In sprit of compromise may I suggest the following:

1. Keep the main "Rajput" article as exclusively Hindu terminology, as far as religion is concerned.

2. Make a subsection explaining the social-status grouping of Rajputs, and here mention that many "Rajputs" of this class can also be Sikhs in religion.

3. Create another link and an article called "Ranghar" and/or "Kamikhani", and in that/those mentioned the continuing claim held by many Muslims. These terms, I believe, was used quite extensively for a period of time in describing Muslim of same social/ethnic standing as those of Hindu Rajputs.

I do hope that this compromise is ageeable, and the conflict resolvable. Good Luck. 128.8.143.140 15:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Badami

I don't think I accept the compromise as given. However, the version that all but ONE of use are defending is not all that good. If Shivraj would just hold off on the attacks, so that we'd have the energy for something besides defense, I think it would be possible to expand the article to expand on some of the problems with caste, lineage, social identity, etc. There is no one authority in these matters. Some people will accept some others as Rajputs, some won't. We have to give all points of view. At present, they aren't fully laid out. Zora 01:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay so we make the religious dimension a sub-section. And in that state that it is mainly a Hindu phenomenon as far as the religious dimension of it is concerned -- i.e. "sacred soil of Chitor" etc. As I read it you have no problem with my explanation of Sikh Rajputs as a social status, and as an indication of lineage. And you havent mentioned any objections to the term "Ranghars" and/or "Kamikhanis". So is it a possibility? -- Badami

OK. But why don't we set up a temp page as a scratchpad, to work on things there without distractions? If we can. If Shivraj will leave that alone. Zora 18:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, new user here... how do I go about setting up a temporary scratchpad? Incidentally I came across this by way of trying to expand Indian Cavalry Regiments, where "Ranghars" were a significant source of recruits. I also need to do that, and any help from you all will be greatly appreciated -- particularly interested in Skinner's Horse which recruited exclusively "Ranghars" in the beginning. -- Badami

War or Truce?

Some cowardly @##?@ edited my holy words and I swear by Ma Bhavani that I will not rest till I mess up their comments out of all comprehension. If need be I will sleep one hour less every night but before going to bed I will make sure their edits are rendered totally meaningless.

On the serious note, guys, what is so great about editing other people's words? If you can do it I can do it too. That is utterly childish. The only editing I will permit is to filter out the four letters words since kids may be reading this discussion too. There too I will permit only the stamping out of offensive words by ### or other characters. I will never allow full deletion of sentenses.

If you guys agree on this, good for you. Otherwise its TOTAL WAR!!

--Sisodia 03:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

All you guys do realize that this is an utter waste of time. 99 percent of Muslims in the sub-continent are converts - so some are bound to be Rajputs. If they wish to be Muslim Rajputs (whether in India or Pakistan) - it is their choice. It doesn't make sense from an Islamic stand-point - since a monotheistic religion like Islam does not permit such divisions. It's like a Brahmin converting to Christianity and then wanting to be classified as a Brahmin Christian. I still do not think this will resolve the issue :) - Best of luck tho

Interestingly enough, I just read an online article pointing out that Muslims themselves are stratified. See [1]. Zora 03:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The above 2 points are both correct although Islam doesn't recognise inferiority it also doesn't allow caste superiority over some else except through deeds of piety. None of us are alledging superiority, we do allege Royal ancestry thats all we believe Rajputra to mean. That was a good article Zora highlighting the other side of the coin where Indianised Muslims still hold on to the repressive caste system still for asserting the inferiority and superiority scenarios. --Raja 14:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing Offensive Comments

Any comments seen to be offensive in anyway (including personal attacks and racism) should, in normal cases, be removed immediately. Please take this into account. Thanks, Fir e Fo x ^-CVU- 19:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Lets take examples of other ethnic groups

Enough fooling around. Let me give logic for why muslims can not be termed as rajputs. Ethnicity has always been linked with religion. When a set of people change their religion, they lose their ethnicity too and assume new ethnic identity. To give a few examples

No it hasn't. No one in the US thinks of things that way. Someone is Irish-American, or Indian-American, no matter religion he/she chooses.

Heck, I'm still a Scandinavian-American, even though I converted to Buddhism. Zora 06:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora world is bigger then America. People who migrated from Pakistan into India are NOT called "Pakistani Indians" so who cares if there are Asian Americans or Irish Americans in America. 61.246.49.248 17:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

(1) Modern day Turkey has a large proportion of muslim people who can trace their descent from Greek, Armenian or Slavic population. Yet, these non-turkic people do not claim to be Greeks/Armenians/Slavs and are not accepted as such by today's Greeks/Slavs/Amenians. They simply go by the identity of Turks now because they are muslims now.

Well actually no, they refer to themselves as Turks because they are from Turkey. Many Christian Turks would be surprised by your assumption here. Some actual research on your part would explain this to you to be an incorrect point.--Raja 15:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What I have said is that no Armenian will accept any muslim citizen of Turkey with Armenian genes as a fellow Armenian.

Proof? Armenians in the US think of themselves as Armenians no matter WHAT their religion. It might be somewhat different in Turkey, due to the Armenian genoicide, but you'll have to prove that, not just assert it. Zora 06:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Go read Spanish inquisition. Muslims/Moors were either asked to convert or be killed. Many converted to christianity. No one calls them Arabic Spanish anymore. This is the fundamental point Sisodia is making. Once as a race you have converted to other religion, after a few centuries, you have no ties to your original race/ethnicity/religion. 61.246.49.248 17:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Once you leave the christian faith, you are no longer ethnic Armenian. Ditto for Greeks. See, it is a known fact that Bosnian muslims are genetically same as Serbian. Both are slavs. Yet do Serbians see them as same? The answer is no. Otherwise why would there have been such a long war over Bosnia? --Sisodia 03:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thats actually wrong again Sisodia, as the Bosnian issue is similar (not identical) to the Indian and Pakistani issue. Pakistanis are same as Indian ethnically ofcourse, but nationality has become a distinction in terms of legal citizenship here. There are Hindus, Sikhs and Christians in Pakistan. By your assertion then they cant be Pakistani because they aren't Muslim? Also Greece has a minority of Muslim population, so are they no longer Greek? Greece has never been synonymous from it's inception as a Greco-Christian affiliation.--Raja 12:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

(2) Parsis originally belonged to Iran. They moved to India when most of the Iranis converted to islam. Yet nobody today can use Irani and Parsi terms interchangeably. To be a Parsi is to be a zoroastrian and to be an Irani is to be a muslim. Period.

You are confused here. Parsi is the old word for Persian (i.e. a famous Muslim convert from Persia was called Salman Farsi/Parsi. denoting his Persian ethnicity) Because the Parsis of India were a new group, they were called Parsi encompassing their Faith. They are Zoroastrian and of Persian origin. They have intermarried with local communities and now resemble Indian appearnce and hence their ethnicity has become visibly mixed. They retain the name that they are now commonly identified with. Many Iranian are Christians and Zoroastrians and even Bahai, does that mean they are no longer Iranian? Iranian means Aryan as Iran comes from Ayr'an, land of the Aryans. It would be interesting to see what modern non Muslim Iranians would think of your naive assumption.--Raja 15:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Raja can you stop lying or get your confusion removed? Have you ever met a Parsi/Zoroastrian in your life? Answer is obviously no. A parsi if he/she marries outside Parsis they are ex-communicated. In this regard they are identical with rajputs i.e both parents have to be rajputs for children to be rajputs. 61.246.49.248 17:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is confused. I know very well that Parsi term originally simply meant Farsi. But terms which share common origin can come to mean different things when they diverge by pronounciation. Hindu and Sindhu terms have common origin, yet one means a religious group and other means a river. Iran and Aryan terms have common origin, but former means a country and later means a racial group.

See, I stand by my argument that to be a Parsi you have to follow Zoroastrian religion. Rajiv Gandhi and his children though can trace their lineage from Parsis, they are not accepted as Parsis by majority Parsis simply because they do not follow Zoroastrian religion. I am not sure what exactly is their religious affiliation, but most likey it is not zoroastrian. I know Parsis well and I can bet any money on the fact that if you convert to any other religion you will not be accepted as Parsis any more. --Sisodia 03:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Parsis, and Jews, are somewhat anomalous cases in that they are religions AND that they have often interpreted their religion as barring conversion. Except -- I think that there are even ways for Gentiles to convert to Orthodox Judaism. Conservative and Reform Jews make it very easy. My friend Alis is Danish-American AND a Jewish convert. The Parsis of India have been much stricter about this, requiring both parents to be Parsi if their children are to be accepted as Parsis, but, according to what I read, there is increasing pressure on the clergy to loosen the rules and allow conversion. Zora 06:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

(3) One more example from closer home. Pakhtuns are always been defined as people, who among others things, must be muslims, and probably sunni as well. Can you imagine a hindu or christian pathan? sounds silly, doesn't it?

How is it silly? Pathans are identified as Afghanistanis, it's an Indian/Pakistani word for them. In fact many Afghans aren't aware that they are referred to as Pathan by us. Are you implying that should they become Christian, they are no longer Pathan/Afghanistanis? --Raja 15:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Pathans are identified as Afghanistanis, it's an Indian/Pakistani word for them."

Pathan, Pakhtun and Pashtun terms are synonyms. I use them interchangeably, though I agree that Pathan is term used for them by indians/pakistanis only. They refers to themselves as pakhtun/pashtun.

Now, Pathan/Pakhtun/Pashtun is a term that denotes lineage (or ethnicity, which is the same thing), and not nationality. You say Pathans are identified as Afghanistanis. Really? Think again. What about millions of afridis, waziris, yusufzais, momands and many more pakhtun tribes who happen to be pakistani citizens? Are they also identified as Afghanistani? if any ISI guy reads this you will be dead meat for them :-)

Of the many tribes you have mentioned as being in Pakistan, they are all STILL referred to as Pathans by the locality. The fact being that they are distinct ethnically from the main Pakistani population and hence they are usually branded under this word as the distinct tribes aren't always known about or discernable by the average non Afghan person. I can site many examples from our own region where the particular tribes are still referred to (even after 100yrs of settlement) as simply Pathan. They likewise call us Pakistanis or Hindi, as opposed to our tribal affiliation names e.g. Rajputs, Jats, Gujars or Katris etc. Your genetics cannot be changed by your mental beliefs. Your understanding of the importance of your ethnicity can ofcourse change (i.e. racialism and racist) but you will ultimately still belong to your ethnic group.BTW ISI would not trouble me, I assure you bro, but thanks for the concern :) --Raja 12:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"Are you implying that should they become Christian, they are no longer Pathan/Afghanistanis?"

Yes, they will certainly cease to be Pathans. In fact this issue has been discussed in the wikipedia article about Pakhtuns. Just read the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakhtun#Who_is_a_Pashtun and you will know why religion is a important conditions for belonging to a certian ethnic group.

They will still be Afghanistanis, because Indian/Pakistani/Afghanistani are the terms which determines the nationality as defined by United Nations. Anybody who is a citizen of the state of Afghanistan is an Afghan. Just as the british citizens of muslim descent are british because they hold the british passport. (If my guess is right, you are one of them, aren't you?). Religion does not come into picture in determining nationality.

You are right, I am indeed. But that doesn't change the fact that I belong to a different ethnic group? Citizenship and ethnicity are clearly two seperate things here. In fact I can cite a common example how although UK has white people in it, there are distinct groups e.g the Irish and Welsh distinguish themselves from the English who they believe to be different from them ethnically i.e. English have Roman and Norweigian blood etc. Therefore, citizenship and ethnicity are two distinct entities.----Raja 12:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I can dozens of such example if asked too. So I ask that if being a muslim is a necessary condition for being a Turk, Iranian or Pakhtun, and being a zoroastrian is a necessary condition for being a Parsi, why shouldn't being a hindu be a necessary condition for being a rajput?

This theory is inherently flawed because you are taking the common majority faith to be the pre consition of the stated ethnicity which in itself is impossible as there are many Arab Christians, many Turk non Muslims and many Iranian non Muslims. But Rajput isn't an ethnicity at all. It's a lineage based issue. Unless Rajputs are a different race to the average Indian or Pakistani then even then your argument would be flawed as then their faith (which is a mode of ritual practices and mental and spiritual beliefs) cannot affect ethnicity or genetics in any way. This is scientifically impossible. I am trying to make this point peacefully and with due respect to your points. If I came across negatice in any way, that was not my intention. Let's keep things civil here and debate with sincerity and respect Sisodia. This is the 1st time I have addressed you directly and I hope we can debate from here onwards on more civil terms. --Raja 15:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

See, to be acknowledged as the member of a certain group, you must be accepted by the OTHER members of that group. I, for example can claim to be an Eskimo, but the world will call me an Eskimo only when majority Eskimos accept me as one of their own.

Well not really, you are referring to a class here, but confusing ethnicity. How can a black man cease to be a black man if his brothers and family disown him? The world would still refer to you as black regardless of your families reasons for disowning. However if a knight is no longer a knight because the order of the queen, then yes you are right. But if he still a knight but other tribes refuse to accept him because he follows another faith, then my friend other knights do not have the right to remove his knighthood. Only the supreme King or Queen would, which India never had (unless you count the Mughal emporers, who did accept the Muslim Rajputs and even married from one of them too.)--Raja 12:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not, science fails in resolving ethnic disputes because these are emotional issues. Genes and Lineages are pointless if Majority Rajputs disowns you. It sounds sad, but brother, that is the way cookie crumbles. --Sisodia 03:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Science does solve ethnic disputes actually because a simple dna test can prove the ethnicity of a person. But it cant resolve social disputes which ofcourse this is, so you are half right here, as this is a social dispute not an ethnic one. Secondly it doesn't sound sad because we have enjoyed our reputation for centuries in our respective regions and by the various rulers that entered the Indian plateau as well as other Hindu authorities of the times (even today)but this may be a social issue I feel, as there is a clear distinction between a Rajasthani Rajput and a Punjabi one, even if both are from the same faith. But thank you for not making any personal references here and for being civil so far. This will win you the credibility for an answer to your points. :) --Raja 12:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why are we wasting so much of our time in such a simple question? Rajputs were to India as Knights were to the Medival Europe. If you look into the history deeper, we will find that in every hierarchical ancient society there were three major splits in the society. First came the religious leaders, Brahmins, Priests, Pastors etc. then came the fighting arms, Knights, Rajputs, Legions etc. and below them were the working class, the commonors. The sons of Knights were considered to be knights and they all protected their land from the enemies. Changing one's religion had always been an ongoing process in the world and it still is in the world today. We never see anywhere that changing one's religion changes his lineage. Different areas were home to different religions in the history but if you look into the history deeper enough, the ruling clans had always almost been the same. Religion had always been an issue for fight because it is based upon belief but the Knighthood, Rajputhood etc. were the matters of simple hirearchical structure of the society and this is a proven universal fact. Had any knight been deprived of knighthood because of changing his religion? What about those in the Roman Empire who converted to Christianity? Those of Greece etc.? Rajputs are no different in their hirearchical status and scope as any other equivalent in any other society of the same time. Why do we still argue?

And about majority Rajputs disowning Muslim Rajputs, who can say that with assurance? Did we ever had a concensus done in the history for this specific reason? And above all, scientifically speaking, who has get his DNA checked to confirm that he is the prodginy of the person who is at the top most of his pedigree?

خرم Khurram 17:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"Son of knights are considered to be knights"??? -- I am sorry, but a mild correction here the Baron was the lowest hereditary feudal position; ofcourse a son of a knight had the maximum chances of getting squirehood and qualifying as a knight, but it was not by default. This small misunderstanding is the root of our problems!!! All sons of a Rajput, even if one ends up as a dustsweeper in London are Rajputs (to get the point across to Raja); all sons of Brahmins even if one cannot read his own name is still a Brahmin. Ridiculous as it may seem - imagine a mualvi who cant read, or a ghazi who cant fight - it is a Hindu identity. Its not entirely without merit in its own way... it has seen millions of "mualvis" and "ghazis" of various religions come and go, and yet it survives while they lie as entries in an encyclopedia. Trying to rationalize it to your needs is both insulting to us, and dangerous to you. Its better to be without any knowledge of something than to construct a false understanding of half-understood ideas.

My friend so after a "Count" died do you say that his son was not reinstated as the "Count"? Also do you think that after a Kinght died, his sons abandoned the family name and titles? The point that I was trying to make is that Rajputs are nothing unique in the history. They are just like other warrior clans of other societies of the time with the same dynamics and purposes. As far as people and ghazis and maulvis are concered, in India, still today the highest position is held by a Muslim. :)

خرم Khurram 15:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

After a Count died??? A Count is a hereditary position... as are all positions above a Baron as I made clear. And yes, if a Knight died and his son wasnt trained and capable of being a knight he ceased to be a knight. Sure the son can hold on to family name, but NOT the family lands for any extended period of time (if his overlord was worth his salt ;-). The Rajput, while certainly not unique -- see samurai until Meji Restoration for more sensible anology -- was different in the sense that regardless of his lands or lack of it he was still a Rajput by birth. There were a lot of way for him to lose his "Rajputhood" but economics wasnt/isnt one of them. As far as I am concerned President Kalam's position just goes to underscore my point -- religion and secular life are quite independent to most Hindus, whose President is today a Muslim maybe tommorow a Sikh a Jew or even a Jedi Knight ;-) Besides he is a rocket scientist, not a ghazi nor a mualvi...

Thank you my friend. Your assertation that a Rajput is by birth can solve many problems on this page. I know you still put the "many ways" thing but historically speaking and this history is pre-70s, changing one's religion was not one of them and it still is not (Besides Muslims, we also have Sikh and Christian Rajputs). As far as Indian president not being a maulvi or ghazi are concerned, I think Akbar was neither a maulvi nor a ghazi and nor were many Muslim rulers of the sub-continent. BTW if you go by the literal meaning of the word "ghazi" your president can be categorized a "ghazi" if you believe that he did some effort in promoting the true side in time of war. :)

Also my dear friend, the offsprings of the so called "ghazis" and "maulvis" didn't vanish. They are thriving in the sub-continent just like the offsprings of Hindus and Christians.

خرم Khurram 21:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Census and the argument so far

Census is taken by a government clerk walking up to your house and asking the household some basic questions: age of residents, caste, religion etc. They then record it. Anyone is free to claim whatever they want. This data is not interpreted by census takers in any manner. If a household mentions they belong to religion A , caste B that is exactly what is recorded. This is what is happening here. Muslims claiming to be rajputs just like they do in census reports.

Yes, but the census only asks questions re the Backward and Scheduled castes, not re the other castes. It hasn't recorded caste (in general) since 1931. Your information is more than 70 years out of date, Shivraj. Zora 02:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No. For each district in India down to the village level it is known exactly how many of a particular caste live there. This information is used by political parties to give tickets. For the election of an MP (Member of parliament) if there are 3 lakh rajputs in a constituency invariably rajput gets the election ticket and similarly for other castes. Stop spreading lies. Census keepers record everything and report for public use only part of the data. Shivraj Singh 04:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A minor point here, caste/religion is still declared on entry into schools and most government jobs. So it is possible to make out demographics of many communities by accessing local school records - of course null for large cities and uneducated, remote villages.

Muslim argument for calling themselves rajputs:

a) There forefather way back when was a rajput.

Yes--Raja 13:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Lineage -- royal or caste based -- can still be disowned ;-) OTOH, it can also be "granted" in many instances... please keep that in mind.

b) Muslims like Ghori's followers etc should be considered rajputs. You seem very confused at this point. We dont assert this at all. You are very preoccupied with your own assumptions here. A mild point ref this was made by wisesabre I believe in a theoretical sense, but not supported or asserted by us or him. Drop the argument, it's stale.--Raja 13:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wisesabre/Khakhan and yourself have spoken words to this effect. Do not hide behind the veil again. Shivraj Singh 17:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wake up and smell the coffee. It's stale. We dont hide, you're the one stuck on the path of stubborness, not us--Raja 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are the excerpts that have amused me over last few months. Let us enjoy some more denials and hiding behind the veil..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive01#Baseless_arguments_against_Rajputs

many outsiders were upgraded to Rai/Raja/Rajput status through might and war became Rajas i.e. the Ghakkar/Kokar who are essentially Iranian Sassanids, but gained Royal title and acceptance as one through sheer determination and unrelenting campaigns against other powerful clans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive03 Another good example of this is the Ghakkar/Kokkar Sassanids. They were ousted from Iran and they gained settlement in India. They were a Royal Dynasty which ruled Iran for 600years. During their stay in India, they rested not on their laurels but fought for many centuries. They adopted the Hindu faith for a period, then accepted Islam (the majority). Their martial blood never let up regardless the faiths they converted to. The mentality was essentially the same throughout the centuries, over a 1000yrs of which is recorded in India history. Does this mean that they were only noble, valiant and martial whilst they were Hindus? They weren't Chandravanshi, Suryavanshi or Agnikula, yet they were called Rajput by the Pundits of their respective conquered regions due to their warlike nature and noble brave acts. Many authentic Rajput houses even engaged in marriage between these 'New Rajputs' despite the well known tradition that Rajputs don't marry non Rajputs. This essentially Iranian Dynasty which interchanged between 3 faiths in the last millenium has retained this status from the REAL Rajputs who had power and prestige of the day (not us modern day speculators- but the living and breathing Royals of the Rajput era. I don't consider todays 'Rajput Houses' as one of those, who are powerless remnants of the past.) It is a well known fact that Scythic and Hunnic tribes were absorbed into the fold as Kshatriyas/Rajputs too. So even lineage itself has been questioned here. It is therefore more status based than Religion based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive03 . Here one of you is trying to say even saladin was somehow a jihadi rajput.

All these points prove that a Rajput is a product of both nature and nurture. Born into a house of ideals, raised with a Martial upbringing with a strong sense of honour and nobility. Thus we Muslim Rajputs may not be Kshatriyas, but we are Mujahids, which means 'one who engages in Jihad' and the ideals of a Mujahid are much more strenuous and honour bound in the sense that we must act with the knowledge that we will be accountable to our Lord one day..... . It was this similarity that made the transition from Hindu Kshatriya Rajput into a Muslim Mujahid Rajput an easy one seeing as the ideals are extremely similar. A perfect example of a perfect Mujahid Royal can be seen in Sultan Salauddin Yusuf Ayyubi of the Crusades who liberated the Holy Land from the Crusaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive11

One thing I have noticed in this article about Muslim Rajputs is that they somehow feel it is somewhat less prestigious to be a Rajput than an Arab. The authors’ observation regarding Wattu and Kharral families is eye-opening. They bend over backwards to deny their Rajput roots.

http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/punjabis.html

Almost 60% of the population of the Punjab comprises of Rajputs and Jats and the various branches of their race such as Awans, Khokhars, Ghakkars, Khattars, Janjuas, Arains, Gujjars, etc. though the Awans, Khokhars and Khattars claim common ancestry from Qutb Shah who is said to have come from Ghazni with Mahmud Ghaznavi, scholars hold the view that they were most probably converted by Qutb Shah during Mahmud Ghaznavi's reign and were not his descendents. This tendancy of claiming foreign origin by some of the local tribes is not uncommon. Even admittedly Rajput tribes of famous ancestry such as the Khokhar, have begun to follow the example of claiming connection with the Mughal conquerors of India or the Qureshi cousins of the Prophet.

A branch of the Wattu Rajputs of the Sutlej by an affection of peculiar sanctity, have in the course of a few generations become Bodeas and now deny their Rajput and claim Qureshi origin. There is a Kharral family lately settled in Bahawalpur who have begun to affect peculiar holiness and to marry only with each other and their next step will certainly be to claim Arab descent.

Though Arains claim Iranian descent, they too are generally considered of Rajput origin, but Rajputs having Scythian-Kushan-Hun origins are indeed related to Iranians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive11

Pakistan Govt. routinely names its missiles after Muslim conquerors of India like Ghauri, Gaznavi and Babur. (In fact I wonder why haven’t they come up with a missile called ‘Taimoor’, probably they are saving that name for the first ICBM they make. ) Anyway, since Punjab was the first Indian province in the path of these invaders, it is reasonable to assume that Punjab bore the brunt of the fury of these boys. And since Punjabi Muslims were martial and warlike people (we all seem to agree on this, don’t we ), it is also reasonable to assume Punjabi Rajputs crossed swords with invaders.

In fact there is historical evidence for this. Ghauri was killed by Khokhars’ in a battle. Babur was given tough time by Yusufzais (not Rajputs, but another ‘martial’ race of Pakistan nevertheless). Mahmud Gaznavi’s battles with Hindu Shahi kings are too well known to be mentioned. Hindu Shahi kings were Punjabi Rajputs, most probably early Janjuas.

So my point is that, why doesn’t Pakistanis name their missiles after Jaipal (Hindu Shahi king who defended Punjab against Gaznavi), Dahir (who defended Sindh against Arabs) or the Khokhar chief who didn’t let Ghauri go unchallenged from Punjab. Isnt this the typical behavior of converted people; Desperately trying to identify with the invaders who defeated their ancestors.

Let’s face it Raja, Khurram etc. You guys are in minority. Even the Pakistan Govt prefers to identify more with Ghari and Gaznavi than Dahir and Jaipal. Islamic identity supersedes bloodlines in Pakistan, even if it means celebrating the defeat of their ancestors and honoring the enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive11

But to take pride in their bloodline is a must for being a Rajput. After all, the term ‘Rajput’ is an ethnic marker and not a religious one. How can one call oneself a Rajput if even after knowing the depredation of Turks and Mughals in their homelands one honors them by naming missiles after them.

I quote following text from the stories of Sayid Bhuta, a Punjabi author. Full text can be found at

http://www.lokpunjab.org/articles/stm_articles/article_detail.asp?ID=186&No=1

The story by Saeed Bhuta revolves round a character named Bhagi Khokhar who on the pattan (belt) of the river Chenab remembers the Punjabi girls who were captured by the Mughal invaders like Amir Taimur and his grandson Peer Muhammad and were auctioned in the markets of Bokhara: Takkey mul vick gayyan dhian Bukharey mandi charrh gayyan bhainan (Our daughters were sold at throwaway prices and our sisters were auctioned in the markets of Bokhara).

Bhagi Khokhar remembers all those who had resisted foreign invaders, including Alexander. She remembers Porus, Jasrat Khokhar and Sheikha Khokhar and in the end says: "there are no more fighters in the valley of Chenab. Those who never pocketed an insult have gone. They fought back like brave and honourable men.

So my point is, unless Pakistani Rajputs denounce the atrocities of Turk warriors in Punjab, they can’t be accepted in Rajput community. Can a true Rajput glorify the Turks who sold their daughters in the markets of Bukhara? Do some soul-searching brothers.

I am much pleased to know that (at least some of) the Muslim Rajputs seem to know where their roots lie. So let’s make this article an inclusive one. This wikipedia page should be a memorial to all Rajput heroes, from kings of Mewar to Raja Jaipal, Jasrat and Dahir. And let’s not forget Banda Bahadur, a Sikh Rajput who fought against the tyranny of Mughal Empire in Punjab. (Actually I am not sure about Dahir. Was he a Rajput or a Brahmin?). Let’s keep aside the rhetoric and focus on ethnic Rajputs (irrespective of their religion) and their role in the subcontinent’s history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive12

You are pushing a theory which holds no water. Rajputs can only be from Hindu religion. If you had your way soon some of you would be claiming that followers of Ghori etc are also rajputs. Check with other Pakistani rajputs many of whom want to identify themselves with Arabs/Turks/Ghoris etc. --comment by 203.101.50.154

But if thats the case why are Ghakkar Kayanis who are ultimately of Sassanid origin called Ghakkar Rajputs? (Iranian Shahi Dynasty which ruled Iran for approx 600years before Ghakkar Shah-the patriarch came to India with Shahabuddin Ghauri) They are widely recognised as a Rajput clan owing to their similar characteristics and royal lineage yet they are neither Chadravanshi, Suryavanshi or Agni kula? - Raja

Shivraj Singh 04:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Again keep in mind the flexible nature of power-politics, and to a lesser extent caste. Many pre-Islamic Afghan invaders have been granted "kshatriyahood" before, so it was not entirely without reason to make this assumption that a capable and forceful invader like Ghori couldnt have forced home his claim. Islamic invaders, for their own reasons, eschewed this label of legitimacy for the most part for a long time. It was only during the decline of the Mughal Empire did the Muslims start getting self-doubt... and during that period many DID pick up labels of "Hinduized legitimacy" to survive under the Marathas and Sikhs.

I agree with this to an extent. However, there is no record of Muslims resorting to hinduized legitimacy to survive at all. Many wars were wars for political reasons etc and never was a Muslim Raja for example given his kingdom back where he reinstated his Hindu origins. This point I therefore dont agree with.--Raja 15:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Argument against:

1) Son of a rajput father and a non rajput hindu mother is NOT a rajput. Examples: Banbeer (Panna Dhai incident, Chacha/Mahpa who had Rana Mokal assasinated. Chacha/Mahpa were sons of Rana Mokals grandfather through a non-rajput hindu mother. They had high standing in the court but were not considered rajputs. There mother belonged to the carpenter line "Badhai"). Today also in rural rajput heartland children of rajput fathers and hindu non rajput mothers cannot get married to other rajputs. Being a hindu and not a rajput is one degree away and being a different religion is multiple degrees away. Such unions cannot produce a rajput.

Your point equates to Hindu Rajputs of old who were sons of courtesans or other shudras. Our mothers have been Rajputs for thousands of years, so your point on lineage is invalidated here Im afraid. By the way who is the authority who decides your point? There has never been a general 'jati council' ever so where is your authoritive source? Which Hindu text refers to this? If it's tribal opinions (which ofcourse it clearly is)then it's simply not good enough as it is a POV and nothing more. Period--Raja 13:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Raja you are clueless. Do u understand the word Mlecha? Mllecha is the one who has no jaati. Shudra still has a jaati albeit a low one. Rajputs consider ALL MUSLIMS mllecha i.e people who have no jaati. Once you have left hinduism and joined islam you are mllecha and considered even lower then shudras. Your mother may have been a rajput when your forefather converted to islam but after the conversion your are just a mllecha i.e a person without a jaati and hence not a rajput.

Again this is your biased POV, there is no Hindu text that states this. In fact by this logic how did your forefathers become Hindu Rajputs from Malecha Huns and Scythians? They were obviously not Hindu Kshatriyas when they entered India. But they went in straight at the top didnt they? You are right, I am without Jati, we Muslims dont believe in caste superiority anymore (the non Hinduised ones any way) but I have proven before that Jati and lineage are seperate issues. Do some reading on previous pages before entering argument and repeating old refuted points please. I ask again, show me the unanimous authority that can take our lineage away. I think you'll find you cant, just like your ancestors couldn't nor can you :)--Raja 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You can live in denial that is your choice. Rajput has jaati. Muslim/Mllecha has no jaati and hence not a rajput. Every rajput calls a muslim mllecha.

Like I said, it's your POV. To me you are a kafir Rajput.--Raja 09:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

2) All rajputs have a gotra-acharya through which clans are identified so that intermarriages in the same clan do not take place, which helps in avoiding genetic diseases. Muslims do not have gotra-acharya.

Muslims are told in hadith of the Holy Prophet pbuh that intermarriage within the same tribe is discouraged and one should refrain from it. However it is not banned where the necessity is uncompromisable. But by your reference I must remind you that first cousin marriages have existed within royal families since the times of the Mahabharata. Arjuna Pandava married his first cousin, sister of Krishna did he not? --Raja 13:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Muhammad himself married his cousin. Stop calling Arjun, Arjuna Pandava. Arjun and Krishan were not related. They were good friends. Rajputs have a gotra-acharya and muslims do not. So you are out.

First of all, no he didnt and please dont swear, it shows poor character hence I have removed your verbally abusive statement. You absolutely have NO knowledge of your own faith do you? Which Mahabharat have you been reading? MY ANCESTOR, Arjuna Pandav was best friends with Lord Krishna yes, BUT they were maternally related through Mai Kunti. Arjuna's 4th wife Subhadra, the sister of Krishna was Arjuna's first cousin maternally. Queen Kunti, (the mother of Arjuna)was the direct sister of Vasudeva, the father of Lord Krishna. You obviously dont know because you are NOT their descendant like me. Oh here is a couple of links for your trouble [2][3][4]

you will accept your own sources if not the word of their descendant will you not? This assertion is the most comical to date --Raja 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Reading a few websites does not make you an expert. Krishna was Lord Vishnu himself. God cannot be born to humans. They just arrive "Swayam bhu" i.e they arrive on earth (bhu) themselves (swayam). BTW this is why Khuda is Khud Aaya i.e no human brought him to earth. Similarly Arjuna was son of Indra and was a gift to kunti and not "born" to her. He was not related to kunti through blood line and it is ok for him to marry subhadra. But you cannot understand this. Shivraj Singh 04:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It's great that you now dont dispute their relation, but you are still SOO naive. If Kunti is not Arjuna's mother then why was she crying about being the unknown mother of Karan? [5][6]He was the son of Surya AND SHE WAS PREGNANT WITH HIM.If she had Arjuna the same way, i.e. through a pregnancy, then how could you state they weren't related. Are you now romanticising /fabricating my ancestry now too?. If so then please STOP changing your own religion at least. It's sad.--Raja 09:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You were there and you saw her pregnant. Did Khuda have earthly parents? Shivraj Singh 18:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

3) Gotra-acharya has hindu gods and goddesses as cula-deva and cula-devi who are worshipped on all auspicious occassions. Muslims do not worship these gods and goddesses.

I already told you we Muslim Rajputs converted by the logic that Brahma (the lone supreme God, all other Gods are manifestations of him because he cannot be conceived by the eye or mind) is the only God that we worship. You call it Gotra Charya, we call it Islam, which shows us how to worship Brahma directly. You obviously appear to post points but not read answers to them, as I've posted this answer twice before I believe.--Raja 13:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop making up stories. Brahma is worshipped by you ? How? By offering him namaaz? Raja stop stretching the truth.

Define stretching the truth. Faith is whatever the believer perceives. If I believe that Brahma and Allah are the same, that is my faith. Your opinion/refute/bias in this case is of little value my friend--Raja 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Beliefs are called POV's here. It is same as your beleif of being a rajput. Shivraj Singh 04:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep. And the same as your not believing me to be one. In fact I dont seem any of the pension taking clans to be Rajput. That includes you too :) --Raja 09:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

4) Rajputs take immense pride in there ancestors like Maharana Pratap, Prithivraj Chauhan etc. In rural heartland deeds of bravery are sung everynight after dinner. People listen to ballads of Prithviraj Chauhan, Maharana Pratap, "Allha Khand", Jaimal and Fatta's bravery and many more tales and songs. Muslims on the other hand have no pride in aforementioned ancestors rather they like Ghori/Akbar etc.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You call Prithvi a hero, others call him a tyrant persecutor of innocents. Whether Rajputs take pride in their ancestors or not, it isn't a prerequisite to being a Rajput I'm afraid. Not at all. But for the record, we do enjoy our ancestry. My ancestor Arjuna Pandava was one of the greatest Rajas in the Indian continent and in Hinduism is reverred as the son of the King of the celestial Gods, Indra. So that makes me the son of a demi God by that assertion doesn't it? :) Raja Jayapal Shah, and many more are all remembered and respected by us. If you actually read my or other Muslim Rajputs answers previously you'd see we have pride in our ancestors.(Ieven remember Khurram reminding you of the great Bhatti Rajas also that he is descended from) But we dont romanticise and worship them as you guys seem to be doing.--Raja 13:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Non rajputs are the only ones who might call Prithviraj a tyrant. It is a prerequisite to take pride in your ancestors to be a rajput. Obviously you cannot comprehend this because you are not a rajput.

Again that is your POV, not fact. Name a text, I've asked you before which religious text does it state your POV as fact? Nowhere. Kshatriya and Rajput aren't necessarily the same thing at all. Point has been previously proven. They will only refer to Kshatriya status which in itself is dynamic. Lineage is not I'm afraid.--Raja 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you think?. It is NOT a religious argument. This is a social argument. Having pride and hearing the tales of there ancestors is a social attribute of ALL rajputs but not of you muslims. Shivraj Singh 04:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If it then why dont you answer my question? Was he fighting them for faith or politics and likewise the Rajputs fought him for religion or politics? Evasive as ever...--Raja 09:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Whose fighting are u talking about? Shivraj Singh 18:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

5) Rajputs fought to defend there religion against Islam/"Mllecha" and a rajput converting to Islam is also considered "Mllecha" i.e much lower then themselves or in other words this convert has lost his "jaati". Shivraj Singh 02:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thats ok, we call you a Kafirs anyway, so name calling is obviously subjective and non-progressive. We ruled over our regions and various others for centuries. So I dont think it's appropriate for you to be calling us lower than yourself, especially seeing that it's a POV and certainly NOT fact (not proven anywhere by any text or any neutral logic at all, even after all these weeks of you arguinbg this.) The caste system you often resort to is incidentally MOST misunderstood by you. Let me explain. How can you hold a status higher than all, if you are a road cleaning Rajput by trade? Technically your jati would be that of a dalit or Shudra? As you are clearly no longer a Royal warlord are you? You cant keep the best of both worlds Im afraid. I can even give you the example of a Gehlot dustbin man we have here in the UK? Does he still retain Kshatriya warlord status even though he does a shudra/dalit's work? I know you will answer No, he is still great etc. but it just shows you are stubborn and not accepting reality and have very little understanding of the dynamics of the jati system. For that there is no solution.--Raja 13:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said earlier Mllecha have no jaati and are below shudras and that is what rajputs consider muslims and that includes you. Read any book on rajput history and you will find it written there.

It doesn't matter what you think. Our beliefs never costed us our royal statuses and lineage, no matter how much your biased troops complained. Not then and certainly not now. BUT you still havent answered the question for my Gehlot dustbin man friend? Is he still a Kshatriya and a Rajput despite his job?--Raja 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a muslim washing the loo in my village everyday and his ancestors converted from rajputs way back when just like yours.

I knew you would get personal and not answer my point. Typically evasive as ever --Raja 09:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Since when has stating facts considered getting personal. This quy is a ranghar same as you. Shivraj Singh 18:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way Shiv, you never answered my question, if Rajputs fought to defend their religion, then why did Guru Gobind Singh fight the hill Rajputs? Was this a religious fight also?--Raja 13:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Before GuruGobind Singh why did Maharana Pratap fight against Man Singh?

It's rude and impolite to ask a question over a question. I haven't had a single person from your biased academy answer my questions, yet I've answered all your pointless ones. Go figure :)--Raja 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

One has to apply there brains and not act like kids. If you cannot decipher the war of haldighati then no matter how much I explain the conflict between GuruGobind Singh and hill tribes it will remain beyond your comprehension. Shivraj Singh 04:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

And yet again you still evade the question...--Raja 09:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Really! explain ur understanding of haldighaati and based on what u write u will get an answer. Shivraj Singh 18:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

After asserting all the points that Zora and Raja are making, I would like to add one more thing. Fighting for the religion is a term that our friends have borrowed from their Muslim counterparts just like the word "Shaheed". And if my friend Shiv is so adamant that Rajputs fought for their religion against Muslims (No historical evidence approves it) then why didn't they fight against the British? They were Non-Hindus and were more alien to the Indian Society than the Muslims of Central Asia. As far as propogating the religion is concerend, there are more Christians in India today than there are Sikhs and definitely there were conversions done from Hinduism to Christianity.

Khurram stop dreaming. I will grant you that rajputs did not go around and destroy others place of worship but once the "mllecha" armies came to our lands we defended our religion and did not let India become another Iran/Iraq/Turkey etc. Historical evidence is only for people who are intellectuals and not for stupid.

As far as being regarded as Rajputs in the Census is concerned, does my friend think that Sir Denzil Ibbitson was so biased against the Hindu Rajputs that he didn't like to mention that Hindu Rajputs don't assert Muslim Rajputs as legitimate Rajputs? Since my friend is implying that NO Hindu Rajput acknowledges us as legitimate Rajput, this belief must had been more intense during those times and more evident. BTW a guy who sits in the cube next to mine is "Parihar" and his great grandfather was the Sainapati of Jodhpur. That guy never even once said that I am not a Rajput. He often mentions that I am his half cousin since his mother is a "Bhatti" Rajput. Where will my friend place him?

Tomorrow if you get Tony Blair to say that you are a rajput will I accept it. No.

Shivraj Singh 17:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC) خرم Khurram 15:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you one hundred percent that you will? I challenge you today Shiv. Tony Blair was an advocate barrister and enjoys a good debate. If he accepted our case would you accept it? I know that you wouldn't anyway, seeing as you've made another typical pointless claims and then backed out further along the line.--Raja 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

For you even if God himself will say that I am a Rajput you will say NO, I am sure about that. :) But my point was that how was it possible for Sir Denzil Ibbetson to say in his book that change of religion doesn't effect one's caste in India? Are you arguing that he based his comment in ignorance? Very big undertaking I believe.

As far as dreaming is concerned, it is surely not me who is dreaming and trying to mystify the simple acts of being prominent by those who didn't even think that in the days to come they will be attributed for a deed that they never thought of. Let me write this loud and clear, "Rajputs never fought in unison for any purpose except for keeping their prominence and whenever that was guaranteed, they did what others did in other parts. They accepted the supremecy of others". Had that not been the case, India wouldn't have been a paradise for invadors starting from pre-historic times till today. Regarding your comment about destroying the places of worship, Just go back a little in time and read about Golden Temple, Babri Mosque, Burning of Christian Priests alive and Gujrat riots among others hapenning almost every decade in India today.

خرم Khurram 17:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right Khurram, even if God came down and told them, they wouldn't. Who cares for their stubborn denial. We dont.... :)--Raja 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You just do not get it. Is "Sir Denzil Ibbetson" a rajput? Did he ask a rajput that would he marry his daughter to a converted rajput? Did he hear a musilm say that Ghori's descendants should be rajputs?

Rajputs are the reason why Hinduism is alive and thriving in India. United or not the power of our sword was enough for our religion.

Shivraj Singh 17:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought you said Sikhs and Marathas were too? Are you changing your opinion AGAIN on here? You have absolutely no credibility because you never answer our questions yet demand an answers to yours. We always reply and refute your claims, to the point that outside admins and editors even agree with us, but you still dont follow the manner of debating at all.

Raja history is clear. You cannot twist it to pit me against sikhs or marathas. Shivraj Singh 04:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone has hurt your feelings by calling Ghoris descendants (you are again mistaken since he didnt have any, hence the slave dynasty??) then I apologise on their behalf. It's caused you offence and was a radical theory. But I must state here your credibility has been further weakened today than ever; firstly for saying that Krishna and Arjuna were not related (a naive mistake given the open knowledge that they were-ironically I've just provided you Wikipedias links to suffice you,lol. and secondly despite all the knowledge you assert, you made a simple mistake of realising that slave dynasty was instated because Ghori had no sons. Do we still have any other baseless point to argue or can we finally put an end to this childish revert war and co exist on here peacefully Shiv? --Raja 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Rajputs are the reason why Hinduism is alive and thriving in India." Your world starts with this phrase and ends on it. While Rajputs were not able to defend their people and lands how could they have defended their religion had there been any threat to it? Don't you remember that the Rajputs aligned themselves with the British because Marathas were too good for them? Don't trust me just read your "official" history.

This is why I say keep dreaming. Shivraj Singh 04:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

خرم Khurram 21:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's great that a Hindutva extremist can come on here and call everyone else dreamers. Are you still dreming of a non secular India one day when there will be only Hindus? There will always be a Nehru and a Ghandhi ji for every extremist to fight. So really my friend, YOU must keep dreaming --Raja 09:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected

This article is protected due to edit warring. Please keep in mind that edit wars are harmful, and not likely to produce any lasting results, as the other partes can revert just as readily as you can. Remember also that protection is not an endorsement of the current version, but merely an electric fence to stop the edit war right now, and force only discussion. You are welcome to ask me directly to unprotect when there is consensus. Dmcdevit·t 02:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the article, now let's try and see if AGAIN we can get a concensus...--Raja 09:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's go to Talk:Rajput/Temp and work on the article there. Zora 09:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I put up a sketch of an article on the temp page. Try the link now. I don't know enough to completely write it. Bollywood movies are not a completely reliable source for contemporary Rajput life <g>. Zora 11:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Sad and sickening to see that this article is being written by 'Indologists' whos source of knowledge is Bollywood!!,... carry on folks, please tell us more about Indian history. I think its time to work on a hindi version of this page. Ss india 11:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

At least I admit my limitations. Zora 11:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a Rajput page and not a page of Indian history. I think thats what the contention has always been. I have taken the liberty to remove the racial/prejudiced words etc from above comment. Zora, your efforts are not going amiss I asure you :) --Raja 11:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You're trying to say Rajputs and Indian history are mutually exclusive topics? Great! 217.91.106.245 14:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. --Raja 14:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I really admire that. Knowing your limitations, must you insist on a point here that really has no takers in the real world? How many Indians/Hindus/Rajputs/Kashtriyas have you spoken to on the matter and reached your conclusion? While what you might interpret as a 'hostile hindu POV', is simply the truth. Hiding behind words like 'bias', 'non-neutrality' etc. etc. is not going to change widely held views on the matter. The question on muslim rajputs can be settled by numbers simply. If such a group of people exists, they are too small to find mention in the very definition of rajput itself!! It is a gross distortion of the reality. Calling you paki is insulting?? Ss india 12:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Pakistanis like being called Pakis, so on behalf of Pakistanis, I deny being a Paki. Actually, it's kinda cool being called names. An angry Iranian called me a Bengali. Perhaps I can collect a full set of insults. Anyone want to call me a Tamil? How about a Mumbaikar or a Malayalee? Zora (who's a gori living in Honolulu)

That last sentence was directed at the person whos comment appears above (Raja / or Razah isnt it?). A person who takes liberty of editing others' comments, talking of allowing 'all' points of views? Just like Hindu-stan is the land of Hindus, Pakistan is the land of ....? Or persian language is so imperfect? Anyway, how can they be ashamed of their own name..it was not meant as an insult..... Ss india 12:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I edited that word that is deemed insulting by many Pakistanis and I am ver much entitles to edit insulting words. The rest of your post was indeed intact. It's a tall assumption to question the perfection of the Persian language since it aided the common Urdu and similar Hindu language. Hind was called Hind-o-stan, not Hindustan as you imply, by the Afghan and Turk invaders i.e. the landi of the Hindis, people of the Indus, which means EVERYONE in India at the time. There is no actual Hindu text referring to a follower of Hinduism as a 'Hindu', therefore it's obviously a recognition of nationality rather than religion. Also for your information, Pakistan is Pak-e-stan in pronounciation i.e. the Land of the Pak(pure). If you refer to us as Pak it would be great. Paki means pure, but the word carries a history in the west isn't all great (by the way, many racists in UK and USA call ALL Asians Paki, so it's the treatment they ALL received which connects this word to it's insensitivity. It's not just bad to actual Pakistanis, but all Indians too. We are most certainly not ashamed of being Pak, of belonging to tribes of Rajput ancestry or being connected with India here in the west. I hope that clears it up for you. :) --Raja 14:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I just have few questions. Where were the Hindu Rajputs when an English man attacked their religion by concluding that Muslims are also Rajputs and that changing one's religion does not change his caste in India? And above all why did they permit their own department to re-publish that work? And again why do their official websites carry the term Muslim Rajputs?

And my friend Shiv, it is not me who is dreaming, tell me one Conqurer that Any Rajput clan has ever produced? Rajputs were great warriors not great generals. Distrust among themselves and looking down upon each other were the causes for their defeats in the past and remains the same today. Had this not been the case, India would never have been conquered so many times by so many of the nations. Practically whoever ventured into India, ended up forming an Empire here. Take some time to think about it.

خرم Khurram 15:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Go read some books on hindu philosophy and culture and then come back. Hint: People who have nothing to eat and nothing to wear think of conquering other lands.

Shivraj Singh 18:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Claims of Iranians being rajputs

b) Muslim claim: Muslims like Ghori's followers etc should be considered rajputs. Shivraj Singh 18:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You seem very confused at this point. We dont assert this at all. You are very preoccupied with your own assumptions here. A mild point ref this was made by wisesabre I believe in a theoretical sense, but not supported or asserted by us or him. Drop the argument, it's stale.--Raja 13:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wisesabre/Khakhan and yourself have spoken words to this effect. Do not hide behind the veil again. Shivraj Singh 17:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wake up and smell the coffee. It's stale. We dont hide, you're the one stuck on the path of stubborness, not us--Raja 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are the excerpts that have amused me over last few months. Let us enjoy some more denials and hiding behind the veil..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive01#Baseless_arguments_against_Rajputs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive03 . Here one of you is trying to say even saladin was somehow a jihadi rajput.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive11

http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/punjabis.html

Though Arains claim Iranian descent, they too are generally considered of Rajput origin, but Rajputs having Scythian-Kushan-Hun origins are indeed related to Iranians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive11

I quote following text from the stories of Sayid Bhuta, a Punjabi author. Full text can be found at

http://www.lokpunjab.org/articles/stm_articles/article_detail.asp?ID=186&No=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive12

Shivraj Singh 04:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Shiv my friend, do they offer classes on "logic" in your area? Please go and take some if they do. Never in the excrepts that you have provided is said that "Ghauris and others are Rajputs." About Gakhhars, don't trust us, read the work of Sir Ibbetson (Yes this name will be coming up again and again since his is the first authentic work on the castes of Punjab and NWFP). Don't trust him, go ask some Gakhhar Mirasi. And as far as the comment about Salahuddin is concerned, I think Raja was trying to point out to the similarities in roles that Rajput had with the warriors of other cultures.

Anyway here "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive12"

you are trying to put your words in our mouth when you said,

We, the Muslim Rajputs rejected this effort of yours at that time and we still reject it. No Muslim Rajput wants to be categorized as Arab,Turk or Ghori etc. and being a Rajput is not a matter of religion. This is the true historical fact recorded by the earliest historical evidence and we stand by it. Even in India Muslim Rajputs are considered as Rajputs and this fact is evident from the official web sites of Indian provinces and districts.

BTW in a comment of yours to Zora did you want to imply that giving a daughter to a Muslim is something that is against Rajputhood? Also regarding your answered to read about Hindu philosophy. Do you want say that Hindu philosophy says NO to conquering other people's lands? ( I bet that you will not answer this question in the way that you tried to imply it:) ). Also you said that people who had nothing to eat and nothing to wear conquer lands. So you are implying that the Rajputs were not able to defend their land because they had plenty to eat and wear? Does anyone else agree with this logic?

خرم Khurram 20:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed a funny discussion. "Did you want to imply that giving a daughter to a Muslim is something that is against Rajputhood?" I advise you to think on this a little and the cases (real everyday ones) where this is actually happening, and the answer should be clear. Don't ponder too much on Hindu philosophy, I guess its sufficient to say here that it doesn't preach people to think that whatever they can reach out and grab is theirs to take. On the matter of the motivation to conquer - ofcourse if people have enough, they wouldnt be seeking greener pastures. What I can see above is that 'Muslim Rajputs' do not claim to be Kshatriya (indeed how could they?), and that is the very point which needs to be talked further since - a rajput who is not kshatriya???? a realllly grey area indeed. Ss india 10:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"It was this similarity that made the transition from Hindu Kshatriya Rajput into a Muslim Mujahid Rajput an easy one seeing as the ideals are extremely similar. A perfect example of a perfect Mujahid Royal can be seen in Sultan Salauddin Yusuf Ayyubi of the Crusades who liberated the Holy Land from the Crusaders."

As is clear from the above comments, a case was really made by the muslim side to portray Salahuddin as a Rajput. That I really find fantastic! This is profoundly idiotic and certainly made me think twice if guys like Raja/Khurram/Wisesabre etc are worthy of my time.

What next is coming? Japanese Samurai and Christian Knights to be classified as Rajputs?

I will have more to say once I can control my laughter.

--Sisodia 02:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/j/Talk%7ERajput_Archive_14_517e.html"

Category: Talk archives

Talk:Rajput/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Treachery

Shivraj

Offer...

Shiv & Others

A Possible Compromise?

War or Truce?

Editing Offensive Comments

Lets take examples of other ethnic groups

Census and the argument so far

Protected

Claims of Iranians being rajputs

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search