Talk:Rajput/Archive 3
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. |
Contents |
Reply to Kunwarji
You imply that Rajputs glory was attained by fighting the armies of Muslims. We must clear one point here;
a) Not all the so called Muslim kings who invaded India were perfect Muslims and in fact many of them never followed the basics of the faith. It is also a noteworthy point that many Islamic Luminaries of the time rebelled against these same so called Muslim Kings, so please be distinct with your point. This is also in view of the point that great many Kings of Ancient India although followed the precepts of Hinduism were less Hindu in their acts.
b) Rajputs glory is simple, it's in their nobility and bravery as well as their accomplishments. If it was just because they fought Muslims and were defeated, then that is a poor identity for us. Our glory precedes and predates these conquests. This point must be made clear. There are many other castes which are always trying to undermine us, let us not in fight amongst ourselves regarding our OWN history and significance.
c) Sikhs state that they are not Hindu and do not believe in the Varna that some people are born lower. Then how can Sikhs also not be outcaste by your definition that when one leaves Hinduism he is outcaste? I disagree, I believe that it is a warrior spirit, way of life which if anyone commits can become a 'Kshatriya'. You may not accept this, but an actual Pundit has assured me of this who is a greater authority on the Varna I believe.
Another also interesting point, I have cut and pasted a page for your reference;
Thoughts About Castes From Mahabharata Retold by- Chandra Holm Chandra Holm is originally from Ramanagaram, Karnataka. She holds a doctorate in Metallurgical Engineering from McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. She currently teaches at the University of Applied Sciences in Olten, Switzerland. Since a very early age, Chandra held a strong passion for literature. She is the author of 'Dasavatara,Die zehn Gestalten des indischen Gottes Vischnu', a German book containing reproductions of beautiful miniature Pahari paintings from the mountain region of India. Chandra was also involved in translating into English the book 'Bilder des Nainsukh von Guler' by Eberhard Fischer and B.N.Goswamy. She hosts a web site purely devoted to the rich Indian literature- Chandra's Book page http://ch.8m.com. Nearly 7 years ago, she started, in Zurich, a literature club on Indian literature. She also helps organize concerts of Indian classical music on regular basis in the Rietberg Museum in Zurich. Chandra is married to a German physicist, and is the mother of two young boys.
(The epic Mahabharata is an unparalleled source of stories. Every time I read the epic, I discover something new in it, learn something more from it. One of my favourite stories from Mahabharata relates the conversation between Dharmaraja, the eldest of the Pandava brothers, and a python, on the importance of the castes. The incidence takes place after Dharmaraja loses the game of dice, and loses, as a consequence, his empire and all his wealth. Dharmaraja offers his brothers Bhima, Arjuna, Nakula and Sahadeva as bets, and loses the game. Then he bets himself, and later even his wife, Draupadi. Every time Dharmaraja loses the game to his cousin, Dhuryodhana, the King of the Kauravas. At this point the elders in the Kaurava court intervene, and Dhuryodhana reluctantly agrees to set the Pandavas and Draupadi free. On one condition. The Pandavas and Draupadi have to retire to the forest and live there for 12 years, and they have to spend one more year in disguise.)
The Pandavas are quite content to live in the forest, spending their time in the company of other sages. Dharmaraja enjoys discussing with these elders the intricacies of dharma. On one such day, Bhima sets out to hunt. When after a long time Bhima does not return, the brothers and Draupadi get worried. Finally, Dharmaraja himself sets out in search of Bhima. Soon he hears Bhima's cry for help. Hurrying in the direction of the voice, Dharmaraja sees Bhima, who has been attacked by an enormous python that has wound itself around him, making him totally immobile. Seeing his mighty brother struggling like a helpless man in the grip of the python, Dharmaraja is shocked. With tears streaming down his face, he starts praying to Krishna.
Just then, the python addresses him in a human voice, and says, "Oh, King, Dharmaraja! I understand how unhappy you are at seeing your brother being imprisoned by me. I will happily let him go if you can correctly answer a couple of my questions." Dharmaraja replies, "Oh, Holy being! You are certainly not an ordinary python. You seem to be testing us - for whatever reason. Please state your questions. I will try to answer them to the best of my abilities."
The python asks the Pandava brother, "Tell me, oh king, who is a Brahmin ?" Dharmaraja's answer is clear. He says, "He who speaks the truth, who is patient, and is compassionate, whose character is without any blemish, who gives alms - he is a Brahmin." The Python continues, " What if a Shudra has these qualities?" Without any hint of hesitation, Dharmaraja replies, "A Shudra who has these qualities is not a Shudra. if a Brahmin does not have these qualities, he is certainly not a Brahmin." The python is not satisfied. It asks further, "If it is the character which makes a man a brahmin, what is the use of the caste system? What role does birth play?" Dharmaraja continues calmly: "These days castes are very mixed. Therefore the caste cannot be determined by birth alone. There are many examples, where the caste of the child is determined by the caste of the mother. At the same time, there are also plenty of examples, where the caste of the father decides the caste of the child.
The sage Vedavyasa was born of a fisher woman. But he is considered to be a Brahmin, because his father was one. The same fisher woman later married king Shantanu, and was considered from that time onwards as belonging to the Kshatriya caste. Their sons, Chitrangada and Vichitravirya, were considered to be Kshatriyas. Unfortunately both these princes died without having sired children. For the sake of the continuation of the royal lineage, their queens were asked to bear children from the sage Vedavyasa. The great sage consented to undertake this task so that the dynasty will continue. Pandu, my father, and Dhritarashtra were born as a result, and they were considered to be Kshatriyas. Vidura, who was fathered by Vedavyasa at the same time, is considered to be a Shudra because his mother was a servant. And look at us, the five Pandava brothers. We are all born of gods. Yet we are considered to be Kshatriyas. So, how can birth determine the caste? How can one son born of a sage be a Kshatriya, and the other one a Shudra? Birth can determine the caste only if there is no mixing up amongst the castes. When the castes are mixed up, as it has been happening for so long now, birth alone cannot decide the caste of a person.
Thus I am convinced that it is not birth that determines the caste to which one belongs, but it is the character that decides. In my opinion, it is the holy Gayatri who is the true mother of a Brahmin, and the teacher who is the true father. Thus that person is a real Brahmin who has studied the Vedas, whose character is without blemishes, who strives to realise the Brahman, the supreme entity."
Rajput is just that, a son of a Rajanya, a chief. If you disagree and state that it isn't lineage based then you are wrong again. If it is a way of life, then both Islam, Sikhism and even the Japanese Samurai code all dictate such a way of life. Yet some of them were downgraded from their status, but not their bloodline. I have yet to meet a Jatt who is not proud of his lineage.
d) Muslim Rajputs aren't a new phenomenon, they are over 800years old. The code of Rajputs isn't a religious one, but an honour one. Islam dictates that to hold all that is pure and discard all that is useless. Being a Muslim Rajput doesn't mean that you discard even the intellectual and pure elements of other religions. The codes of honour are very much consistent with Islam except stubborness. A Rajput who is stubborn and doesn't open his mind to the truth when he sees it then he is stubborn, and many a Rajput has been downgraded due to this.
Yes Muslims are no longer Hindu. They do live in the same society though. They are no longer within the stratosphere of the Varna, but believe that ALL men have the capacity to become bigger men should they want. Yes they are outcastes from the Hindu faith which they left, but their lineages are not less respected by their Brahmin or Hindu counterparts, who understand them. For example, the family line of Muslim Bhattis will always enjoy their lineage as Yadavs and having as connection with Lord Krishna who many Muslims believe in also (so please do your research properly before making your 'well founded remarks'. Your handful of Muslims dont speak for the majority, obviously.) Janamejayan Pandavas who have converted to Islam, will always enjoy their lineage with Arjuna Pandava, but that doesn't degrade their sense of nobility or martial spirit. Examples of these are that even today some of them are leaders in their respective Martial occupations. 3 Generals of the Pakistani armies have been Janamejayans. This is their heritage which even Islam states that a good pedigree is an excellent attribute to have. This 'heritage' which Islam refers to isn't meaning of great leaders of poor character, it means even common men, but with noble character. Just like it also implies Noble or Kingly status of noble character which many of these dynasties were. Your point regarding the Gita is well made regarding it's instruction to the ethics of Rajputs etc. Who better to understand this than the sons of the father who first heard it, Arjuna himself? Just because we follow Islam doesn't mean good ethics and morales of our original faith cannot still be followed.
e) Your point that Muslims Rajputs are claiming descendancy of defeated Hindu dynasties is also erroneous because we both know the Mughal Dynasty was beyond all Rajput might which was clearly evident in the Rajputs tributary statuses which in itself is evident of your contradiction that it is 'against their honour to be defeated and accept any foreign leadership'. I believe the Mughals were foreign? Mughal Akbar ensured this contradiction. I believe many Houses receieved tributary status and continued their rule. Just as in even the British period. Infact many fmous Rajputs gave their daughters hands to Akbar himself in marriage to solidify themselves with them. So why forget this and try to reinstate something in an attempt to reclaim a false glory? Muslim Rajputs state their pedigree and their pride in it which is not against Islam, unless they assert their authority over others of lesser pedigree to make themselves feel superior and others inferior, which is wrong and unfair.
f) The historical Muslim accounts that you refer to regarding the defeat and conversion of Rajputs being amazing etc. must also be put into context that these accounts were very much glorifies of their rulers and added much spice to stories. If you have ever read one which I am sure you will have done, then you will agree. Yes some leaders were converted by (again) these so called rulers, but the 1st rule of Islamic faith is "There is no compulsion in faith" i.e. you cannot force Islam on anyone. As I stated before these so called Muslim kings were simply tytrannical kings, even the Muslims themselves opposed them many a time. There were houses that accepted Islam without compulsion such as the Kokhars, Janjua, Bhatti and some Mohyals such as the Balis.
g) Speaking of Balis, you question why majority of Pakistanis use Rajput status but where are the Brahmins? The Balis are a Mohyal (Brahmin Warrior) caste and are great in number in Kahuta district of Pakistan and also huge in number in Punjab Pakistan. They are predominantly Muslim. This is just one example I can cite for you at this time. They are still staunch supporters of the Janamejayans or Janjuas who they have been in service to since they converted over 800 years ago.
h) The Iranian Muslims who you refer to do infact have a strong element which strongly believes in and supports their Aryan lineage. They don't appear openly so, as infact nor do the Muslim Rajputs either. Have you ever seen a Muslim Rajput with a tikka on his forehead and the rest of the Regalia? Just because it is not apparent to the eye, doesn't mean the passion is not in the heart.
j) You have claimed that some Muslims believe the Turks and Arabs are superior to them Martially. This is a simple view borne out of the fact that these races are acknowledged as warlords of a conquering nature. Yes Rajputs were very powerful in their era, but were ultimately only based in India. They never conquered beyond it's own boundaries, possibly due to the civil wars between feuding Kingdoms. However the Afghans and Turks both conquered huge lands and ruled over the said Rajputs very brutally indeed as you have mentioned above. Then later, the Mughals in fact were descendants of world conquerors (Tamerlane and ofcourse maternally through Genghis Khan, the world's greatest known conqueror who's fighting capabality needs no elaboration.) The Mughals power and Martial capability was proven by their acceptance (by force or alliance) by the Rajputs. Only once an Arab (Muhammad Ibn Qasim)came to battle in India and he easily defeated Raja Dahir of what is now known as Sindh. He was a young teenager and general of an army coming to a foreign land who defeated a strong Rajput. That's why they are known as Martially superior by those who deem such things as important. Instead of engaging them and elaborating your point, it does no good to ridicule this simple view, which in itself isn't all wrong in the above stated sense (Martial capability as a race according to proven track record) If we go by this logic that a Martial capability of a race determines it's superiority then Rajputs are nowhere near the accomplishments of the Mongolian empire. But do we see such pride in them?
I believe you are misunderstood about our meaning of Muslim Rajputs. Yes we no longer rule kingdoms etc. (i.e. the status of Kings is no longer there) but our tribal identity is that we carry some of our Hindu traditions which are consistent with Islam. Other non Islamic traditions are also widely practiced which again as long as they are not in contradiction with Islam are permitted. In fact a well known Muslim act of Qawali is alien in other Muslim lands but great many Muslims follow it here in India and Pakistan. It is also backed by many Scholars too. Yes some scholars disagree but they are less in number and extreme in their views. So in answer to your predicament, we Muslim Rajputs are large in numbers, proud of ancestral lineage where it helps our faith and our adherence to it. We are still Martial in our traditions which I am sorry but our upbringing and blood traits cannot degrade simply because you are in such an opinion with other foreign universities. We are not Hindu Rajputras and do not believe that we were born of the Moon and Sun at all. But we do believe in the nobility of our blood and ancestors and will strive to reach it, as did they. Valiance, bravery, nobility and Martial spirit are not exclusive to a Hindu culture alone. Many faiths and cultures will prove this. We are Indianised Muslims and will invariably continue to be which again isn't prohibited by Islam. There a great many Muslim Saints especially the famed one of Rajasthan, Ajmer who preached this view and he was Persian by descent!
You say Muslim Rajputs must make a unique identity of their own, which is different to the Hindu one. I say that this is already in existence. We can even be considered a hybrid of sorts.
The only difference between me and another Hindu Rajput of the same clan would be by faith. Our blood would essentially be the same, our upbringing would be similar although fundamentally not identical i.e. The Hindus wouldn't observe Ramadan, the Muslim one wouldn't bow down to an Idol of a Deity. The nature of their blood and principle upbringing would still be in the same Martial and noble vein which even you have stated 'Rajput isn't a Religion'. Therefore by this logic it is only the difference of Faith, not blood. So how can one lose his lineage by converting his faith. This doesn't make sense. If it's lineage which makes a Rajput then all sons of the Rajanya are Rajputras. Blood will always prevail to it's traits. 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.
I would like to apologise for any offence to you. I am extremely grateful that you have not marred Islam in anyway whilst referring to it. Your respect for Islam, your passion for the Rajput lineages and history is very much appreciated and understood. Maybe someday we will get a chance to sit and talk at length over a coffee! Never give up hope,lol!
"Comments on Wisesabre"
First of all let me say, I am impressed by your arguments about muslim rajputs, but I would like to add some thing to it. I agree with you when you say " Rajputs glory is simple, it's in their nobility and bravery as well as their accomplishments. But let me add a little to this definition.
Rajput glory is about their conviction, about their courage to stick to these conviction and about their willingness to pay extreme price for that conviction. They never conquered vast lands and were not always victorious but still could attract highest regards from everybody. From their adversaries even, and that is unique to rajputs. Rajputs were defeated many a times. Not many vanquished races are respected as much as a rajput by even their adversaries who were with full of praise for rajputs. It was due to their fierce determination to fight for right.
It is therefor logical to retort here "Respect for rajputs did not come from those who succumbed to sword and got converted. It came from those rajputs who endured every sort of pain and struggle but remain steadfast to their conviction. They might have lost many battles but there was a glory even in their defeat and that is also unique to rajputs in the history of mankind. Their defeat was glorious because they were always up against enormous odds but they still gave their adversaries run for their life and that is why those conqueres had respect for rajputs.
People can claim their lineage to their rajput ancestors but I do not think they have any claim to rajputi. This is not because they may not be as good as any real rajput but it is because some where up the lane some of their ancestors did not act like rajputs and thats why they have lost their share of rajput glory. in the same way an out casted son will lose his inheritence. Muslim rajputs therefore have lost their share of that rajput glory.
I do agree with you that one can attain a status as per vedic varna system but then you will have to attain what your ancestors have lost for all of you. I do not know how a muslim is going to attain that status. It is up to the muslims caliming rajput lineage to decide. Till you achieved that staus by your karma I will agree with Kunwarji that Muslim Rajput is oxymoron.
Yours Sincerely,
Dinesh Singh Naruka
whats the way out...
So whats the way out?
I think we could mention seprately the muslim rajput clans.
before answering any Question here you should know what is wikipedia's Neutal Point of view policy.الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 19:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Answer to Wisesabre
I must first state this point that I am in total agreement with the Wikipedia editors with regards to the raising and accepting the dispute of this article. It does portray a biaed view of Rajputs towards the Hindu side and doesn't actually bring into play the neutrality which is essential is such endevours. Thank you.
Secondly, there isn't a need for an alternative. Rajputs are Rajputs, that is there heritage and lineage regardless of what others believe. Whether they pray to Allah, Ram, Guru, Bhuddha or Jesus Christ. To say they are outcaste is very prejudiced because nowhere is history has a Rajput been outcasted by his community or indeed the Indian society for their conversion to Islam. This is a misconception that sadly being alleged here, which I believe is down to resentment of the Muslim rule over them. It has been stated that Hinduism Varna was quite dynamic and certain Rajputs were degraded to Jatts, (but it is believed by some historians that was due to their ignoble acts and impiety towards the people or other Kingdoms etc. It is more likely that it was due to some political reason or another and civil unrest has always been the case in India historically during the multi kingdom era.)Therefore alliances were made and the rulers deposed to simple landowners/grazers. Their lineage undoubtedly stayed the same i.e. Sidhu who are descendants of the Yaduvanshi Rai Jaisal Bhatti, but they were at some point deposed and they accepted Jatt status. To say they are now outcastes or casteless is in bad taste in my opinion and very narrow minded. Especially when one considers that great many Rajput Kingdoms became Muslim and none of the Pundits of the age or likewise Hindu Rajput allies doubted their Rajput statuses, so who are we today to question this point fundamentally when in practise during their era this wasn't so? A person's Piety and good character dictates their Varna and the fact that they may be rulers or MahaRaja's would emphasise that role more i.e. a good and just Rajput would become a noble Kshatriya. In fact we have records in scriptures of some Chandra vanshis becoming Brahmins on account of their efforts toward enlightenment. So this argument is baseless and useless by the article writer. I am Muslim and have yet attended many Hindu Mandirs/Temples for various functions and dear friends weddings and I am always welcomed as a Chandra Vanshi Rajput by the Punditji's and they are proud that I have not forgotten my roots despite changing my method of prayer/worship viz Islam. Where this is ultimate acceptance by the preachers of Hinduism then how can one such alleged Professor of the subject allege to the contrary? Obviously not on Religious authority thats for sure.
Another point worth mentioning here is that the Jati argument that is so often brought up by Kunwarji is also quite misleading. The Varna dictates it as a 'Kshatriya' ideal (state of mind and actions). Rajputra is a different entity (hereditary) from this and I will explain why. The Hindu preachers state that anyone can become a Kshatriya regardless of their lineage, it isn't hereditary (as per the above article by Ms Holm) and is a state of mind and nurturing. Therefore if one leaves Hinduism then he is no longer subject to the Varna in that sense. However if one is the son of a Royal house,he is still a Royal. Rajputra is a simple term which unfortunately is being made into something more, it's being made synonymous with Kshatriya as if one becomes one regardless of his acts and deeds just because he is born into a Rajput dynasty. The Kshatriya status is a religious ideal which one strives to meet, thus proving one isn't born a Kshatriya. It's nurtured and learnt. Rajputra is a hereditary title by it's very meaning 'Son of a Royal'. Kunwarji can argue undeniably that this isn't the case, but every Rajput will argue back that this is the case. The mere fact that one cannot 'become' a Rajput without being the son of one proves this point, yet one can become a Kshatriya according to Hindu sources regardless of lineage. I am citing just one of many internet Hindu sites confirming this.[1]
Although Muslim Rajputs may on the surface appear to be 'Kshatriya-less' or Rajputs with no Kshatriya/Martial ideals by Kunwarji's implication. This again is not the case. Islam's dictate of Jihad and having no fear of death when fighting for Truth,Justice and your ancestral land replaces this 'niche' quite easily so we Muslim Rajputs have never had a problem in that respect (there are many forms of Jihad e.g. to fight for Faith, your rights, your land, your honour, your neighbour, the poor, the outcaste etc). A simple bit of research on the article writer's part would have cleared this for him. 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. So this accountability enhances the stakes. How can one state that we dont have an Islamic identity? We clearly have one. 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. His chivalry, nobility, bravery, martial prowess and strong sense of honour and mercy was renowned even by his enemies to this day. A perfect example of a Mujahid who in turn was also of noble Royal blood (being a Sultan and a strict Muslim, unlike the Mughals, Turks and Afghans that the article writer has decided to elaborate who were very poor followers of their faith.) We are also Muslim Royals of Indian origin who strive to such a standard.
To research our roots is not a questioning of our commitment to Islam. I dont know where this has been conceived. It is only natural for a son to learn of his father and forefathers, why they are famed, about their ancient Kingdoms. Should we start to follow their Hindu rituals before going out to war then one can question our commitment to our Faith. Tribal identity will always remain regardless of our financial or political influence. This is encouraged by Islam as the Holy Qur'an itself states that tribes were created in order to differentiate one from another. So now the question of commitment to Islam is thus negated. To say that our research into our lineage and retaining of it in some way implies our sadness in converting to Islam out of sentimental romance of our Hindu past is a very poor opinion on your part which I perceive is more deep rooted in Religious intolerance of Islam. Muslims are extremely proud of their ancestry throughout the world, throughout many races but Islam teaches to keep it in perspective as in your case it is easy to over romanticise this 'pride'and become extreme in your views. Gradually the inferiority/superiority complex creeps in. We are asked to abandon our old faith and adopt a new logic of sorts. This is widely practiced in many modern nations today. Why prejudice against this view if a Muslim Rajput adopts it?
Finally to Wisesabre, we need no way out. We are already here. We never left. It is the narrow minded and prejudiced who must find a way out of their state of mind and return back to the real world.
@ 212.137.45.109
Ok ! right.You seems to better knowledgeable then me , why dont you register to wikipedia and start edting this article? and please type ~~~~ at the end of you comments.
Prominent Muslim Rajput goths
- Naru (im naru)
- Noon (thats disputed,some think they are rajputs and some think that they are not)
- Rao (two of my friends say that they are rajputs)
- Ghore bahe (my relatives are ghore bahe )
- Baghari (these are also my relatives ,but i doubt if this is there village name or there goth).
- Bhatti (someone told me that bhattis are of two types ,one of them is rajput and the other is not, but im not sure).
This is all i know.but i know few old people who know alot about the history of rajputs الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 13:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Answer to Wisesabre
Thank you for your compliment. I will hopefully register very soon. In answer to your question regarding the Rajput names you mention, I am not well acquainted with them which doesn't mean they aren't authentic. Some subcaste names develop out of many well known dynasties etc. For example Bhatti name has developed out of the Yadavs. The Ghakkar (from Ghakkar Shah) name has developed out of Kayani who was a descendant of Sassan ibn Bauman. Janjua came from King Janamejaya who belonged to the Pandavas (Pandu) who are essentially Kauravas (King Kuru) etc. Each new patriarch of a dynasty will have his own distinct identity over his own future descendants in the ways mentioned above. The Guhilot dynasty itself has many off shoots in this way e.g. Ranawat.
With regards to Bhattis, I know that they are Rajputs although some have alleged Jatt status. They are authentic Rajputs, but some of their fellow Bhatti clan members were believed to have been deposed to Jatt status and their estates seized. Some may have begun calling themselves Jatts as the Jatts united into a new prominent power in Punjab, so being local residents they changed titles with time. I know a few authentic Bhattis who are Rajput by blood (with family trees) but alledge Chaudhry status! Many Rajput families have done this such as Kokhars, Janjua and Sidhu (who are infact descendants of Rai Sidhu who was a Bhatti Rajput).
There are ofcourse imposters but the authentic members of a respective Rajput house will always be aware through some form of record keeping and family trees of where particular branches live etc. Imposters are usually small in number and easily recognisable by locals who are aware of their actual lineage as it's harder to alledge a new clan name in a town you have lived in for centuries.
Another interesting point worth noting here is that the Pakistani army implicitly and explicitly adopted a recruitment policy whereby they would only employ Rajputs as soldiers as they believed at the time that they wouldn't flee from the enemy due to their upbringing and values. Family trees were checked and authenticity was confirmed before being recruited. This unfortunately led to many worthwhile candidates of poorer backgrounds being declined simply due to their lineage. Eventually many candidates applied stating fake tribal identity to gain entry. Authenticity checks were ditched and these families who were victims of this circumstance eventually retained these names of Rajput clans to save face with their new colleagues and friends. This is widely known and did result in many imposters. But I dont feel the word imposter is right to use, it implies a malice. You must understand these people were poor people who had no choice but to use this method to feed their families through this career. It's a weakness on the authentic Rajputs part to look down on one who used their respective family name to help his family survive. But indeed this led to a small explosion if you will of doubtful origin Rajputs.
But with Kunwarji's point regarding why Pakistan having many Rajputs, he himself has mentioned that northern India was the realm of the Rajputs. Northern India eventually became Pakistan. The above made point regarding the 'imposter explosion' is very small in number and as mentioned they are known to be so. They also dont openly state this doubtful Rajput status for for being of found out.
