Talk:Rajput/Archive 1
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. |
This article became part of the apparently Rajasthani nationalism inspired anonymous POV -campaign by 61.17.113.245 (et al.) over at Kshatriya. It probably needs NPOVing (or reversion) and cleanup.
I do not know the etymology of Rajput (rajaputra seems fair enough), but it may be disputed, note Talk:Kshatriya:
- "-put" in "Rajput" is not a sanskrit suffix for son. Raj-put originated from the word Rajputana (a mixed word variation from the sanskrit word rAjasthAna, the region of royal palaces). The word is not ancient and has no reference in the Vedic texts.
-- Dbachmann 10:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1)Rajput comes from sanskrit Rajanya + putra. Rajanya-- Royal /King. putra--- son.
2) Rajasthan-- Land of kings and Rajas and NOT region of royal palaces. That would be 'Mahal stan' or Haveli stan in the rajasthani language.
- I would agree. I was only pointing out that there seem to be people contesting this. Dbachmann 09:22, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3) I have never heard of the phenomenon called "Rajasthani Nationalism' ??
wonder what that could be. If someone could kindly enlighten me .
with best regards, Kartavya Virya Singh Jamval.
- call it "Rajput Chauvinism", then. Fact is that somebody seems terribly intent on emphasizing that a) Kshatriya=Rajput and b) "originally" Kshatriyas were "above" Brahmins, without giving any historical justification whatsoever. *shrug* Dbachmann 09:22, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In all fairness, I think we can remove the reference to Huns, if our Rajput readers find this idea so offensive: It's just speculation anyway. By saying that their origins are obscure, we are basically implying that they may or may not have a hunnic strain. dab 20:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Dear Mr Dbachmann,
I appreciate your knowledge on Indiology and indeed much of the information you wrote is quite accurate,but you still havent removed the references connecting rajput lineage to the Huns and that we are descended from the invaders who attacked India from the northwest.
So I am deleting that myself, if there's no objection.
You gave the reference of the manu smriti for the hierarchy of races and castes. Thats excellent..BUT theres a slight problem....the Manu smriti is a law book .Its not a religious treatise.
actually nowhere in the hindu scriptures will you find the superiority of any caste over the other. if you give me the example of the Purusha shakta of the rigveda, it outlines the function..not the hierarchy of the castes.races Its by spiritual and mystical right that the Kshatriya was on the top of the society ( which I was 'shouting' about all this while.)
secondly, sir, If i may say so..most of the information that you have posted here are direct copy pastes of other webpages.
I can prove it to you,sentence by sentence with the corresponding website/page that you have copy pasted from.(if you wish) e.gs..britannica encyclopaedia etc.
I dont know about copyright violations etc, but this doesnt reflect well with your own view of objective and sincere research.
Thirdly,
Your borrowed claim that the Rajputs have obscure ancestry beyond 1000AD in the kshatriya webpage..is..(if i may use the word )in utter ignorance.
The Mewar Line goes up to the Era of Lord Ram (around 5000 BC ) if that is imaginable and conceivable by western society. They even have records which i believe arent doctored by any brahmins as in Shivaji's case. They are kept in the archives of Udaipur palace in rajasthan till date.
Mr Dbachmann,I frankly dont know and dont care about the allegmanic race...but I respect people who are aware of their own roots. my regards to you. And sir thank you very very much :) ..i know my own lineage..descended from King Prithu of the vedic age around 700 BC.
we dont need to prove such things..its only the limited western mind, which doesnt think its evolutionarily,socially and chronologically possible due to its own conditionings.
Mr. Dbachmann, it was nice having a discourse with you ( which i cant say for the other belligerent, internet-learnt morons here ).
my best regards,
your friendly neighbourhood rajput chauvinist.
K V S J.
The word rajput comes into play after 5-6th century AD. As such Rajput is NOT synonymous with ancient kshatriya in the Vedic hymns. It is a medieval ranking of the ruling class in north and western part of southern asia and does not designate common desecnt or ethnicity but a rank acquired. Rajputs are indistinguishable from other folks of their respective region, and show a huge variety in their phenotype. So to say that they are all generally taller, fairer and more "meditterannnid" than other peoples of northwestern region in India is false. --Omer Khan
- Feel free to make those changes. IMHO, this article still reads too much like a 19th-century Romantic view of the Rajputs. Perhaps I can't see it due to the deficiency of my "western" mind, but most of the generally-accepted histories I have read, by both westerners and Indians, can't document an unbroken line between ancient Kshatriyas and modern Rajputs, much less a 7000 year pedigree. That is not to say it isn't true, but there just doesn't seem to be much in the way of solid evidence. Tom Radulovich 21:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The word rajput comes into play after 5-6th century AD. As such Rajput is NOT synonymous with ancient kshatriya in the Vedic hymns
Omer Khan--Pakistani I assume ? .LOL. Omer Khan,I have heard Islamic propaganda saying that Lord Shri Ram and Lord Shri Krishna were descended from the middle eastern tribal, ass-riding ,camel herding and date chewing Solomon and Abraham.
This is perfect !..Now we shall have Islamic mullahs teaching us the esoteric meaning of the vedas or something.
Omer Khan , Kindly stick to your koran and your hadiths and satisfy yourself with the camel race mythology there. This isnt your cup of tea.
---Shonan Talpade
To whomsoever it concerns,
Kartavya Virya singh Jameval was absolutely right in what he discussed.
At the end of the vedic era,the vedic kings divided their kingdom, during their lifetimes, into small principalities which were ruled by their sons and appointed kin. Hence thats the root of the word Rajput-- abbrv of Rajan-putra (Son of king), cos they were literally sons of kings and not actual solemn Kings per se.
Now it is accepted in Hindu society that the earliest known monarch with his capital at Ayodhya, was Iksvaku, who founded the aryan solar dynasty of Ksatriyas. Now he is mentioned In pali buddhist scriptures as King Okkaka.
Lord Ram too had divided the kingdom, during his lifetime, into small principalities. He coronated his eldest son Kusa as the king of Kusavati present Kushinagar, where buddha breathed his last.
So as per what ive written Lord Ram was A Rajah and his son Kusa was a 'raj-put'
As a rule No tom, dick or harry in ancient India could assume the title of Rajput, without having a lineage going up till the ancient kings. Yes ,there could be exceptions to that rule, ( as what is mentioned Shivaji had done when he coronated himself )but those examples are few and far between.
To whoever wrote -->The word rajput comes into play after 5-6th century AD. As such Rajput is NOT synonymous with ancient kshatriya in the Vedic hymns
Purusha shukta rigveda--"Kshatriya" is not mentioned there---The word mentioned in the rigvedic hymn is "Rajanya".:)
Siddhartha ( Gautam Buddha's ) army commander was a person called Bikram Singha and he was also a rajput--The word Rajput is mentioned in buddhist literature-and that was around the 5-6th CENTURY B.C
(Bows down to Kartavya Virya singh Jameval )
best regards, -Shonan Talpade
Contents |
Hunnish origin theory
In all fairness, I think we can remove the reference to Huns, if our Rajput readers find this idea so offensive: It's just speculation anyway. By saying that their origins are obscure, we are basically implying that they may or may not have a hunnic strain. dab 20:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is the best solution. You don't burn books simply because somebody's offended by what's in them. It is speculation I suppose, but one with a scholarly pedigree. (I mean, I assume we have articles on scientific racism and creationism and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and so on – doesn't mean we endorse such beliefs.) I suggest it might be better to cite where such opinions come from: for example, the sceptical and Western-educated Indian historian Romila Thapar, who makes this argument for the origins of the Rajputs in Volume I of her History of India. Then our Rajput readers can give evidence to support why they feel Ms Thapar is wrong, as K V S J has begun to do below. Cheers, QuartierLatin1968 16:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Possibly" Raj-putra
Is there any confusion whatsoever that Rajput comes from Raj-putra?
doesnt matter if indians belive it or not!!
Im Rajput, of NARO "goth"/clan and im a muslim also... there are many rajputs in pakistan....
- I'm reinstating the above comment, not because I agree with it especially, but because it is extremely bad practice to delete somebody's comments simply because you disagree with them. Engage their ideas, don't censor them out! Cheers, QuartierLatin 1968 14:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Baseless arguments against Rajputs
There are many Indian counterparts that counter the fact that there can be Muslim Rajputs. You are fundamentally wrong. Simply Muslim/Hindu refers to faith regardless of your social standing. There have been Muslim Rajas from both the Kokar, Janjua, Bhatti, Rathore and Chauhan clans all Suryavansh and Chandravansh lineages. The term Raja is just that, 'King/lord ruler' of a region. Their faith is regardless of their status. A ruler no matter what his faith is still a ruler, so the question of outcaste or leaving the Hindu faith means that you are no longer King is ludicrous as nowhere in history has this occurred or been accepted. There have been many non-Hindu Rajas and Samraats such as Chandragupt Maurya and Ashoka Maurya who were Jain and Bhuddist respectively yet they were still rulers? Does this mean that the title of King/Ruler which essentially is what Raja means is only exclusive to the Hindus? Obviously not.
Many references are made by people questioning the lineages of many well known Rajput clans as to their descendancy, posing the point that they may be of Hunnic or Scythic origin and somehow amalgamated into the Hindu Caste system. This again is purely speculation and no more. The Rajputs themselves are available to provide evidence of their lineages undisturbed over centuries back to prominent Kings/Rajas and should the needs arise, many such houses in India and Pakistan have provided so, re: the Rathores to Lord Rama, the Kauravs of Sri Lanka (Kshatriya Society) to the Kurus, the Janjua to Arjun Pandav, the Bhatti to Rai Jaisal of the Yadav clan, and many more. The Varna was very dynamic and many Rajputs were downgraded to Jats during the Hindu reign pre Islamic times on account of their poor service as rulers, and 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.
The question of religion influencing social status in this respect is therefore unjustified and malicious. The kings remained Kings regardless of their new found faiths. This has been the case in many countries let alone India.
