Talk:Rajput/Archive 9
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 |
This is Sumerendra
Khurram, your knowledge of history is disgusting. Not every Rajput bowed his head to Akbar, perhaps you have forgotten Maharana Pratap and his Rajputs who were never conquered, Chatrasal of Bundelkhand, Shivaji, Lachit Barphukan, Zorawar Singh Katoch, Bhumibol, and many others. Its easy to forget such details when you are not a Rajput and enjoy the darker chapters of Rajput history and rejoice at the defeats of Rajputs rather than our victories.
Rejoice is a hard choice of word Surmendra, there hasn't been any sign of it in any article and your emotions seem to get carried away with you. As far as I understand Rajputs may be stubborn but always level headed to any opposition? Thats the leadership quality. Escalating uncontrollable emotion is not a Rajput trait. The darker days you talk of were of Political turmoil for them rather than Religious war because even their own Rajputs were facing them in the battle field.
In every history bbok, Rajputs are represented as the militant force that fought the Islamic invasion, and this is also recorded by Islamic historians. Using Alexander as an example is pathetic since your knowledge base there sucks too.
How is it pathetic? Are you saying the Ambhi and Raja Puru were not Rajputra? I dont think it's Khurram who is looking pathetic...
Alexander is pre-Christian, pre-Islamic and is part of a Pagan pantheon religion very similar to all religions that predate semetic faiths (ie Jews, Christians and Muslims). Alexander did not conquer for religion, he conquered Persia but did not destroy the Zoroastrian religion, he conquered for the sake of an Empire, which is very different than the terrorist driven mentality of the Islamic hordes, which destroyed Persia and wiped out Zoroastrianism from Persia along with Persian culture (and thats why Iranians hate Arabs).
Iranians hate Arabs? The massive majority are Muslims in case you didnt know. Again, a handful dont constitute a majority opinion. Be careful here. I dont feel you have read enough about Alexander at all, HE DID TRY TO WIPE OUT THE PARSI/ZOROASTRIANS and to this day they call him the Evil One! They recently objected to the new Alexander Movie having an icon of their Religion on his promotional poster, seeing as he was to them what Hitler was to the Jews. He went to Egypt and proclaimed himself the Lord Pharoah himself. He was told by an Oracle that he was the son of Zeus and he believed in his own divinity (although some question this) so how can you imply that he conquered without affecting any Religions? We need to read up on subjects before we discuss them I think Surmendra.
Why didn't the Rajputs fight Asoka? Are you for real or what? Asoka was a Hindu, and if you used the movie by Sharukh KHan as your source of Knowledge, get real. He became a buddhist after the battle of Kalinga. However, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrainism and Sikkhism are all a part of the Vedic faiths. They may have differences but they stem from the same ancient source, the oldest source in the world.
That is your opinion, the Jews, Christians and Muslims equally believe that the religion of Abraham is the oldest in the world. In fact the faiths you mention are very consistent with these faiths in essence, they all have near identical or very similar mystical sides and the holy men of each of these faiths offered great love and veneration of others regardless of faith. The loose term of spiritualist 'Sufism' predates Islam and is consistent with the enlightened path of Buddhism and Vedas too. In fact Syed Haji Waris Ali Shah of Dewa, Bara Bankey, UP Bihar, a famed 19th century Saint was reverred as a 'perfect Vedant' by all his esteemed Hindu devotees and he never asked them to convert to Islam at all. In fact he requested them to pray to Brahma with more Zeal and to be honest in all their affairs. Big contrast to your implied opinion of Islam...
About the Sikhs, don't keep opushing this argument, reading your comments on the Sikhs makes my blood boil, since you have no idea what Sikhism is about, why it started, what is believes and the fact that Sikhs honestly do not have a favorable attitude towards Islam. Whether a Sikh goes to a Hindu temple or not is irrelevent since in India and elsewhere there are Sikhs who may go to Hindu temples as well, but that is a personal issue, however when it comes to Sikhs and Muslims, there is huge animosity because the Muslims killed and mudered Sikhs throughout history. The Gurus were persecuted, children killed in front of their mothers, daughters and wives and sisters raped, this is the Islam that Sikhs have seen, and for you to constantly try to bring up the Sikh issue in an argument about Rajput identity is abbhorant. Go to a Gurudwara and see our paintings on the walls of how the Muslims persecuted the Sikhs, and then sit down and read the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Comm.'s Publication from 1947 titled "Attacks on Sikhs and Hindus by the Muslim League, 1947".
But to blame all innocent people and tar with them with a brush tainted with anothers crime is surely against even in your faith? The Gurus were murdered but by the Empire heads, not the locals who reverred them. To call all Muslims responsible in the same vain, is like us calling every Sikh even today responsible for the murders, rapes, lynchings and torture of innocents by Ranjit Singh and his army. But we dont because we know better, unlike you. I have referred to your over emotional traits blinding your cool headedness as un Rajput like, and there you do it again.
And for your information, this encyclopedia is not an academic reference soure since anyone can simply put up their point of view and edit.
Yes Surmendra. Even you...
About your concept and lack of knowledge of the times in the past and how things have changed: you aksed Shivraj why people did not convert back. Maybe you could sit down and read some history to find out that in those days once a person left the Hindu or Zoroastrian faiths they could not come back. They were not allowed to re-enter and their "Jati" was cut off. Thus they lost the status they once held and were part of something else, in this case your family became slaves to the Arabs while SHivraj's family stayed free and proud. We are slaves yes, to the Pious beloveds of God, regardless of their Race and Class Surmendra. As far as not being allowed back in, where does it state that you only have one chance of being a Hindu? Name me one Muslim Rajput who tried to convert back to Hinduism and wasn't allowed to and his status being lost? He would no doubt still remain a Royal so thats not THAT much of a loss of status, but name me one? If you can't name any then dont play reverse psychology. You're too blinded by your prejudiced emotions to see sense in this logic anyway. We are more than content as Muslim Rajputs of Royal blood. Our Religion doesn't cut us off from our Rajput heritage, simply puts it into perspective, then who are YOU to tell us otherwise? This is a poor point indeed.
You stated: "My sole point is that being a Rajput is only a matter of who your father is and nothing more." In that case you father is a Muslim, thus you are a Muslim, not a Rajput.
There you go again. We are Royal blooded Rajputs, go and do what you want. We challenge you to take our Royal blood from our veins, our honour from our hearts, our truth from our souls and our courage from our chests. If you can't, then stop throwing your toys out of the pram and say something constructive instead of insensitive illogical nonsense.
About Rajputs not able to make India a Hindu nation, that is another discussion about Nehru, Gandhi and Sardar Patel and how they screwed the Rajputs. Also the matter of Akhalistan could be brought up here since Nehru and Gandhi screwed the Sikhs and gave the Sikh territories to Pakistan, bet you never knew that was what many Sikhs believe, I'm telling you, just come to our Gurudwaras and discuss history (ie Master Tara Singh and 1947).
In case you wish to ignore history and then act as if you are being unbiased is an old tactic used by holocaust deniers.
I dont really care for what your democratically elected leaders did to your undeserved pensions that the British Colonialists gave you to keep your pocket money in check in exchange for acceptance of their authority over you. You people didnt do a thing for your subjects and eventually became first rate hoteliers, is that the honour you show to your ancestral land and your inherited palaces and assets. The power should be in the hands of the people not the undeserving 'resting on old ancestral laurels' lazy Rajputs that they became. They accepted the Aryan British of Christian Semetic faith wouldn't you agree Surmendra? Our Sikh brothers of West Punjab enjoy our relationships with eachother and WE take care of their Holy Shrines also, so be careful when you blame us as holocaust deniers. You seem to be a logic denier.
In my view, Shivraj has done an excellent job at presenting the arguements, however its you who refuses to see the facts and instead propagate Pakistani verisons of a distorted history.
By comparison yes Shivraj has discussed some points relatively well in comparison to your emotional illogical and prejudiced rantings.
Please don't ever use the Sikh arguement again.
Dont need to, I have explained all relevant points already. In fact I challenge you to find one point where any of us Muslim Rajputs have blamed you and your religion for the atrocities committed by some of it's poor examples of followers? But you have tried to paint us with the same brush. It should be YOU who should't use THAT argument again Surmendra...
Shiv and Sumerendra
It is interesting to know how much obssessed you are against Islam. It is quite interesting to me. Argument after argument and avioiding the facts all the times. Ashok converted to Budhism but it is ok since it was a pre-Islamic religion and hence Rajputs didn't fight him. Most of India did convert to Budhism but it is absolutely right. And now you might come up and say that Budhism was also Hinduism (negating all the research that scholars have done). I never said that Rajputs didn't fight Muslims but they did fight each other too. Then what is the point? Who of those were Rajputs and who were not? I never approve or support the tyranical behavior of Aurengzeb or those of his kind and it is not an Islamic behavior. But you people are just too over obssessed with the Anti Islam sentiment that you don't listen to logic. I agree that not all the Rajputs did bow to Akbar, but what about who did? How many Rajas kept on fighting Aurengzeb? Bringing up a couple of examples in a country as large as India was itself speaks about the strength of your argument. My sole point was that Rajputs did not fight for their religion. They did fight for their kingdoms and rule and I don't see anything bad with it.
Sumerendra you know very well about Aurengzeb but you don't know about Rai Bular Bhatti. You don't know that the same hated Akbar did visit the Gurdawaras and ate Langar. You don't know that it was Jehangir who alloted land for the Darbar Sahib Amristar. You don't know that the foundation stone of Darbar Sahib was laid by a Muslim Sufi Saint Hazrat Mian Mir. You talk about visiting a gurdawara, tell me what was the first village of Sikhism? I live near Kartar pur and have visited the Darbar Sahib Kartar pur many times. It is being maintained by the Muslims of Pakistan and I invite you to come and witness it and other Gurdawaras present in Pakistan. And one more thing, prove me wrong that Gurur Nanka Dev was against the caste system. I wrote this in response to the argument presented in this article that one needs to believe in caste system (i.e., some are superior and others are inferior by birth) in order to be Rajput. I have many Sikh and Hindu Rajput and Jatt friends and never did anyone objected my being a Rajput. May be they are not as literate as you people are.
I think I have discovered the real problem. The problem is that you hate Islam and Muslims and there is no argument that can make you come out of that haterd. One point though Sumerendra, please make one thing straight. Not all the Muslims were Arabs, and Arabs only conquered a part of India in the 8th Century AD. Indians became subjects to the armies of Centeral Asia and not to Arabs. And how do you talk about pride? You referenced that your uncle was Maharaja of Patiala happily ruling under the rule of British. That was slavery. As far as changing religion is concerned, No Sikh is Hindu. Sikhism is another religion and it is not a Vedic religion as well. If a Muslim is not a Rajput, nor can be any Sikh (as per your argument). You go and research abour your religion before start talking about it. And one thing more, if Hindu Rajputs were given the choice of either converting to Islam or die, then how come so many Rajput families did survive and not only survive but got places amongst the highest ranks? You again didn't tell me why did Rajputs marry hundreds of their daughters to Akbar? Why? Explain these points to me and I will agree to your point of views.
At least be clear about your ideas and there is a lot of things to know and learn only if you come out of your "Anti Islamic" shell.
Khurram
POV pushing and speculation
Shivraj's claims on this page cannot be proven, and don't belong here. The burden of proof in a Wikipedia article is on the one who claims something to be a fact, not on everyone else. If I write "it is proven that the moon is made of green cheese", I should be able to provide documentation that the moon is indeed made of green cheese; it is not up to everyone else to prove to me that it is not. To say that "if there were no Rajputs in India then India would be just like Iraq/Iran/Turkey/Pakistan in terms of religion" is not a "fact", it is just speculation. There are many parts of india--most of India, in fact--where there are few or no Rajputs, yet the these regions do not have a Muslim majority today; if Rajputs are the only thing keeping a country from becoming Muslim, then why is South India, with no significant Rajput presence, still Hindu? What about Spain, or Serbia, or Bulgaria, that were subject to centuries of Muslim rule, who, in the absence of Rajputs, didn't become Muslim? And what about Sind, which was ruled by Rajputs before the Muslim conquest--why did it become Muslim, despite the presence of Rajputs? If one wanted to prove one's theory that the presence of Rajputs is the only thing that prevented mass conversion to Islam, it would be necessary to prove that 1) No region with Rajputs ever became majority muslim; and that 2) all regions without Rajputs became majority muslim. The historical record doesn't support either claim; furthermore it is extremely insulting to the vast majority of Hindus who happen not to be Rajputs to claim that, but for the Rajputs, they would have given up their religion. Lots of non-Rajputs showed enormous bravery in keeping Hinduism alive during periods of Muslim rule, and it is also well documented that many Rajput leaders showed less bravery in collaborating with their Muslim rulers.
Second, to assert that "A point to note here is that lot of Muslims and some hindu historians like Romila Thapar think that Islam/Muslims did not do conversion of Hindus by sword. The argument they give is that there are so many hindus still today in India. This is completely wrong because most muslim rulers in India tried to convert as many as they could but it was the strength of rajput sword that kept hinduism alive in India." is patently absurd. What makes Shivraj the definitive authority on Indian history, able to dismiss scholars such as Romila Thapar as "completely wrong"? It is totally fair to say that scholarly opinions differ, or to avoid speculation altogether, but to state that eminent historians "are completely wrong" without offering some compelling evidence is sloppy scholarship that has no place on Wikipedia. Tom Radulovich 07:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- hands up, you are in firing range lol الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 16:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Tom,
Fundamentally you do not understand Hinduism and Rajputs. Hinduism is a religion which does not have any way of making somebody a hindu. Once you are converted to someother religion that is it. That said in last few decades some organizations in India have invented ways to make people Hindu primarily as a backlash against christian missionaries who were converting tribals.
Reason why Spain/Bulgaria/Hungary/Serbia are not like Iraq/Iran etc is very simple. These regions were conquered by christians after muslims and since christianity preaches missionary zeal this led to reconversion of muslims back to christianity. If u look at DNA data muslim serbs and other serbs are the same stock, similar thing in Hungary etc. Find out the census towards the end of muslim rule in these countries. Iraq/Iran/Turkey etc remained under muslim rule for more then thousand years and the result is that >90% of these countries are muslim. Now why did this not happen in India? It was because of rajputs. Muslims realised very early that rajput men, women and children cannot be subdued at any cost and the wars were constant between rajputs and muslims since the birth of Islam till British came in India i.e almost a 1000 years. This was the resistance which kept hinduism alive and not the benevolence of muslim rulers in India. Though muslims would want you to believe that no conversion ever happened in India on the edge of a sword. If muslims had no resistance in India, like they had none in Iraq/Iran etc India would be like these countries. I do not understand why this is speculation or POV (whatever that means).
Regarding South India the first real muslim empire building that happened in deep south was under Aurangzeb and he had his hands full with both Shivaji and Rathores in the Indian heartland. Also what you do not realise that his incursions into south India were led by Hadas of Bundi and Kotah who are still regarded as the bravest rajputs in rajasthan. Yeah Aurangzeb was the emperor but he could not order these Hada Chauhans to convert south indians into Islam and thus south remained largely hindu, though there are pockets in Karnataka (because of backstabber Haider Ali and Tipu) and elsewhere where there are large number of Muslims. (When Jodhabai died Akbar's generals said to him that every man in his empire should shave there moustache in honor of the departed soul and Akbar agreed and he passed an order to this effect. Man Singh and Akbar had just managed to befriend Hadas and some Hadas were in Delhi during this time. The order reached Hadas that they have to cut there moustaches they laughed at the messenger and asked him to go back. Then Akbar's muslim generals sent barbers with muslim army to there palace. Hadas decided that they are going to fight and to hell with Akbar and Jodhabai. Realise Hadas are less then hundred in number, sitting in Delhi which is teeming with Muslims soldiers and they are defying Akbar's direct orders. Word reached Akbar that Hadas are about to start bloodshed in Delhi and Akbar was shellshocked. He reached there palace and bowed to them and asked for forgiveness. Akbar understood that if Surjan Hada was alienated and if Surjan combined with Maharana Pratap that would be the end of Akbar's rule).
Afghanistan/ Sindh was ruled by Hindus/rajputs since time immeorial but after Dahir's death Sindh was largely under unbroken muslim rule and no major wars were fought in Sindh between rajputs and muslims there. After Dahir's fall his son moved himself as commander under the Mori prince of chittore and hence Dahir's progeny were uprooted from Sindh and settled in Rajasthan. As a consequence muslims did not encounter resistance in Sindh after Dahir's fall and hence the result of Sindh being largely muslim.
No Indian is insulted because rajputs helped preserve hinduism in India. Perhaps Romila thapar and her ilk might be. Yes there are a handful of non-rajputs who fought well but that was an exception rather then the rule. Fighting was only meant to be done by Kshatriyas and nobody else.
Romila thapar, has written that Prithviraj Chauhan begged Ghori after he lost. She has also written that Ghazni broke Shivalinga at Somnath not because he was against Hindus but some other bullshit.
You as a non-hindu and a non-rajput cannot comprehend how insulting these statements are. When one of us hears such untrue propaganda it makes our blood boil. These things along with a whole bunch of other lies is being taught to young Indians today in our shcools and these history books have been edited by Ms Thapar. Why does Romila behave like this? So that she can present papers in western conferences and travel abroad. Make westerners feel good yeah there was an Aryan invasion and yes Indians and everything coming out of India is inferior to the west. Porus lost, pythagoras discovered the theorem, Pi (circle area constant) invented in greece etc. If u have scientific background read Donald Knuth's(Stanford Prof) algorithm books where he has a done a better then average job in telling the world these things were known in India as common knowledge before Greeks even knew what Maths was.
Sloppy scholarship is what I saw on wikipedia a few weeks back when I first visited this site. A rajput site bashing rajputs!! Reading history from books written by biased historians does not make you a scholar. It also does not give you free ticket to spread the false propaganda to rest of the world. I will not allow this to happen and I have been editing the junk on wikipedia that existed before I looked at this site.
If you truely want to learn more and are not arguing for the sake of arguing as others on this discussion are here is a brief list of books that are in my library.
Maharana Kumbha : sovereign, soldier, scholar
Maharana Pratap
Maharaja Mansingh : the mystic monarch of Marwar
Maravara ka itihasa
The glory of Ranthambhor
Rathaura rajavamsa ke riti-rivaja : 1600-1850 I.
Maharana Hammir of Mewar : Chitor's lost freedom restored
Maharana Pratapa : eka aise vira yoddha ki jivana-gatha jisane svatantrata ke lie apani akhiri samsa taka visala Mugala samrajya se janga ki
Maharana Pratapa : aitihasika adhyayana
The genealogical survey : Royal house of Marwar and other states
Unveiling Ajitsingh's Sanskrit biography : issues in Marwar history and Sanskrit poetics
Marwar-Jodhpur
The house of Marwar
Relations between Marwar and the Marathas, A.D. 1724-1843 A.D.
Maravara ke thikanom ki puralekhiya sampada
Durgadas Rathor : [national biography]
War strategy of Maharana Pratap, its evolution and implementation
Maharana Pratapa
Poems of Mewar
The johur of Padmini : the saga of Chitor's deathless heroine
Maharana Pratap : a biography
Maharana Pratap, the hero of Haldighati
Maharana Kumbha and his times : a glorious Hindu king
Maharana Pratap & his times
The luminous life of Maharana Pratap
Maharana Pratapa
Hindupati Maharana Sanga : sacitra
Rashtra-gaurava suravira Maharana Pratapa
Sirohi rajya ka itihasa
Essays on Bardic literature : Professor V.S. Bhatnagar felicitation volume
Bhati vamsa ka gauravamaya itihasa
Annals of Jaisalmer : a pre-mediaeval history
Rajput tales : adapted and abridged from Tod's Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan
Svatantrya vira Rava Candrasena : Jodhapura ka sasaka 1562-1581 I.
Maheca Rathaurom ka mula itihasa : Ravala Mallinatha ke vamsaja - Maheca, Baramera, Pokarana, Kotariya aura Khavariya Rathaurom ka sodhapurna itihasa
Amara Simha Rathaura
Folk tales of Rajasthan
Panna dhaya : prabandha kavya
Mevara jagiradaram ri vigata : Maharana Amarasimha Dvi. evam Maharana Bhimasimha
Maratha confederacy : a study in its origin and development
Vira siromani Rava Amarasimha Rathaura : Nagaura ka sasaka, 1638-1644 I.
Vira Durgadasa Rathaurha
Svatamtrata-premi Durgadasa Rathaura
Prithiraja Rathaura
Bharata ka Liyonidasa, Sonigira Virama de Cauhana, Jalaura = : Lionidas of India Sonigira Viram de Chauhan,Jalore : a history of greatest patriotic saga of Chauhan clan
Folklore of Rajasthan
Rise of the Maratha power
Studies on Maratha & Rajput history
Pranapala Durgadasa Rathaura
Rathaura rajavamsa ke riti-rivaja : 1600-1850 I.
Gogunda ki khyata
Rathaudam ri khyata
Early Chauhan dynasties : a study of Chauhan political history, Chauhan political institution, and life in the Chauhan dominions, from 800 to 1316 A.D.
Survey of Kheechi Chauhan history, with biographical notes
Folklore of Rajasthan
Maharana Pratap & his times
Rashtravira Durgadasa Rathaura
The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan (2 vols.)
Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan (2 vols.)
-Shivraj
"POV" means point-of-view, and understanding the "Neutral Point of View" is official policy at Wikipedia. All wikipedia editors should be aware of the three policies regarding content: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia: No original research and Wikipedia: Verifiability.
I think part of the confusion here is the distinction between the article and the article's talk page. To say "Romila Thapar is a completely wrong" on the talk page is rude and intellectually dodgy, but acceptable; to say so in the article is another thing, since it violates all three policies. It is not appropriate to rebut theories about why Hindus converted to Islam and advance your personal theory in the article, because the article doesn't advance ANY theory on why Hindus converted to Islam, and because 1) the NPOV policy would require that competing theories be presented dispassionately; and 2) it is your opinion (no original research); and 3) it cannot be proved or disproved (verifiability).
The Rajputs weren't able to prevent the conquest of most of India by either the Sultans of Delhi nor the Mughals, nor were they even able to prevent Muslim domination of most of Rajasthan at the height of Muslim power. The argument that Rajput military prowess was the only thing that prevented India from becoming Muslim is a pretty dodgy assertion, as the record shows that the Kshatriyas weren't always successful against Muslim armies (which were often led by Rajputs, as you point out). Nor were the Rajputs present everywhere in India. so some resistance (not armed resistance, but cultural resistance) on the part of non-Rajput indians was essential to preserving India's Hindu character. I agree that Rajputs played a very important role, but to say they were the ONLY reason that India isn't now Muslim is a hightly questionable assertion.
Also, your argument that "Regarding South India the first real muslim empire building that happened in deep south was under Aurangzeb" is factually incorrect; the Muslim conquest of India south of the Narmada began with Ala ud din Khilji in the early 14th century, a little over 100 years after the defeat of Prithviraj III. Rule by the Delhi Sultanate expanded over the next half decade, and was followed continuously by the Bahmani Sultanate and later by the Deccan sultanates in the region between the Narmada and the Tungabhadra, and extended further south after 1565. When Aurangzeb campaigned in southern India in the late 17th century, it was mostly Muslim-ruled kingdoms that he conquered. Tom Radulovich 22:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
There are bugs in your logic regarding Romila. How is it OK to spread one sided history of rajputs just because historians like Romila have written it? What is rajput history? Is it just what some westerners wrote about rajputs and then some Indian historians who towed the British line? Or is it what 99% of rajputs beleive and has been passed down to them from generation to generation? If one visits a rajput village and talk to the elders on any topic that I have written you would get much more data then I have been able to collect so far from books I mentioned. This is the history which is true and not the versions of Romila and a few scholars from Rajasthan are penning this correct history into books. Some of the books have been mentioned earlier.
It is intellectual stagnation to not point the flaws in history presented by Ms Thapar and other editors. How can we trust there research when most of there presentation is false.
Prithviraj could not beg a muslim for his life. Any historian who claims that has a bias against rajputs and it is unacceptable for us to beleive an iota coming from there pen.
It is absolutely correct on my part to point out Ms Thapar is completely wrong. (BTW this discussion is akin to the aryan invasion theory which has been completely debunked. Nobody in rajput country side beleieved Aryan invasion theory ever. It is just modern english educated Indians who were made to learn this stupid theory and sadly is still the case in our schools today thanks to Ms Thapar).
Conversion of Rajputs only happened due to a flaw in there own character where they wanted to retain there kingdom or remain an important general or the relatives of this king or general who converted. Rajput would not be converted by sword or how the ordinary hindus were converted as explained below.
Conversions of ordinary hindus in India happened:
a) After a war was lost.
b) When a principality was ruled by a muslim ruler for an extended period of time thru systematic pressure on hindu population by threats of torture/inhumane treatment/excessive taxation/women abduction/rape etc. e.g. old delhi / mysore/ hyderabad/ rampur/ golconda/ saharanpur/ kashmir/ bengal/avadh (lucknow) etc. have a very high density of muslim population. Wherever there were hindu kings ruling there own kingdom these mass conversion only happened if a war was lost on there soil. I fail to understand why it is difficult to judge the density of muslim population in muslim ruled areas as an example of conversion by the sword.
Some Islamists say that Hindus converted to Islam because of virtues in Islam. If that was the case we should still see ordinary Hindus converting to Islam today. But that is not the case.
Again you are wrong in stating that Rajputs could not stop muslim invasions. This is myth that has been created that somehow muslims were invincible and ruled India for 800 years.
How Alluddin won has been mentioned in the "Battles" section. Within 50 years of Chittore's fall Hammir regained it by capturing Tughlaq and for next 250 years or so Muslims had no real success against ranas of Mewar. Yes there were pockets where Muslims ruled unopposed in India and these regions have highest density of muslims. During Babur's time Rathores had a completely independent kingdom which almost touched borders with Delhi. During Akbar's time pretty much entire rajasthan was ruled by rajputs. Akbar taxed the ones who surrendered but his dictat did not run in rajput strongholds. During his time and later also there regions ruled by muslim generals of his and these parts have a very high density of muslims.
This is another example of how the world has been fed an incorrect assesment of history that muslims ruled India for 800 years. This again shows how less people understand rajputs, including all the non hindu/non rajput editors of wikipedia. A rajput would only conquer his paternal territories. Since Prithviraj's direct lines ceased to exist there was nobody who wanted to regain Delhi. It was not on any rajput's radar screen. World has crowned muslims as Indian rulers just because they were in delhi. Fact is Delhi was just like Mewar another Indian state in middle ages and happened to be ruled by Islam.
You talk about cultural resistance. Are you suggesting zoroastrainism is culturally weaker then Hinduism? How did Islamists convert entire Iran into a muslim state? This was done on the edge of the sword because they did not encounter a sustained resistance in these countries as they did in India.
All Islamic rulers in India had experienced the might of Rajput sword and this was the ONLY reason why India remained largely a hindu country. We can keep arguing about it but there is no other reason. I agree that you have not read it in a book but it is the truth.
Regarding deep south exccursion I meant Mughal excursions. Though some were launched under Man Singh of Amber during Akbar's time but they were not sustained operations as happened during Aurang's time.
-Shivraj
going to your point that rajputs gave there daughters up, that statement true to a certain point....remember alot of sikh rajputs fought there own battles....and they DID NOT GIVE THERE DAUGHTER AWAY like hindu rajput hill kings did....if sikh rajput were caught most did not convert as they would rather die by the sword.....
-Sun-
Truth and Myth
Also what you do not realise that his incursions into south India were led by Hadas of Bundi and Kotah who are still regarded as the bravest rajputs in rajasthan
Here we are talking about Aurengzeb and the Rajupts in his army. Question is, why didn't Aurengzeb first attack Bundis and Kotahs to convert them to Islam since this is what they have been doing as per your comments? Secondly, why did Bundis and Kotahs head a Muslim ruler's army to invade a Hindu territory for him while they knew that these people have killed so many Rajputs and have forced people to convert from their faith? Will you do the same if the situation arise and cooperate with the tyrant? Shall they not be regarded as Non Rajputs since they fought for a "Malich" against the people of their own faith, the faith that they were the protectors of? And just to remind you, even the armies of Akbar who fought against Mahrana Partap were spearheaded by Hindu Rajputs since Turks/Mughals were never present in India in such great numbers to form a formidable force. What about those Rajputs as well? And one final note, I will never sit idle and watch my brother being cut down to shreds even if I had to pay the penatly with my blood. Why did Bundis and to that point all the Rajputs in the India not join Maharana Partab to save their religion from the tyranny of Akbar (If Akbar indeed was prosecuting the Rajputs for not becoming Muslims as you claim)? And above all, why did they marry their daughters to Akbar if his purpose was to alienate their religion?
Khurram
Khurram,
You are asking silly questions repeatedly. You have been told to read this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajput#Battles_between_Rajputs_and_Muslims
Have you read it? If not I do not want to waste my time answering questions which have already been described in great detail.
-Shivraj
Shiv
Ahmmm!! My "silly" questions have not been answered in that post. My questions were regarding your comment that Rajputs were saving their religion. The main theme of all the heroism of Meharana Partab was not accepting Akbar as king of India and not the religion. That same article does not prove any of your claim that Rajputs were forced to convert to Islam rather it talks about the alliance of Rajputs with Akbar and other rulers. Does this mean that you agree that Rajputs did fight for their kingdoms and not for their religion as you kept on saying? And also you didn't answer my question as what do you call those houses of Rajputs who befriended Akbar and all those Rajputs living in those states? Also Chittor did eventually come under the Mughal rule, then what will you call the Rajputs of that time and their descendants?
I think these questions can be answered in simple words without qouting any other resources. Can they?
If you choose not to answer any of them then can you please at least answer this question that I answered in the previous post?
Will you do the same if the situation arise and cooperate with the tyrant?
And please tell me why?
Khurram
Dear Khurram,
Since you have read the article I will answer all your questions. Qasim in Sindh broke down certain temples which existed since the time of Pandavas. Ghazni desecrated one of the most important temples in India at Somnath and this was very painful for every hindu in India more so for rajputs because it was there duty to defend against invaders. You have to realise that rajputs were and still are extremely religious people who undertake all important things like building a palace/marriages/starting a war only at auspicious times pointed by stars thru brahmins. When muslims started breaking idols of Indian Gods and desecrating the temples rajputs did the like wise. As soon as they won there territory back they would break the mosque and cleanse it with gangajal build a new temple and throw all korans into the wells. They would also cleanse there entire palace with gangajal.
Point to note here is that for rajputs it was just a reaction to what they saw happening to there relgious sites at the hands of muslim invaders.
Also note that in hinduism it is perfectly OK for multiple religions to coexist. When followers of Zoroaster were kicked out of Iran by Islamic armies the rajput king of gujarat allowed them to practice there religion in Gujarat and hindus had no problem with it.
After a war was lost ordinary people which included Brahmins were forcibly converted to Islam or were sold as slaves. Protection of Brahmins and thus the religion was a key factor in rajput wars with muslims.
Jalore was a very small principality and was actually not on bad terms with Khilzi. But when Ulugh Khan broke the Shivalinga at Somnath, KanhadDev Songara could not bear this. Eventhough he knew that in long term he did not have resources to beat Khilji he still attacked Ulugh Khan defeated him and reinstated the broken pieces of Shiva linga in various temples around Jalore after cleaning the shivalingas with Ganga water.
Khurram you should think for a moment ask yourself that since in any war that muslims won on hindu territory, muslims broke the temple, why would rajputs not fight to uphold there religion.
Rajputs could not be converted by sword. Only ordinary hindus were converetd by sword. Rajputs converted to Islam to keep there kingdom or remain a general with high stature in Muslim army. After this happened the relative of such kings/generals also usually converted to Islam because they in some sense would become outcastes in hindu rajput society and have difficulty marrying etc.
Rajputs which went with Akbar were completely ostracised by Maharana Pratap and he banned all relationships with such rajputs.
Note Akbar killed all residents of chittor when they refused to convert. In some sense he captured just the walls of chittor. Maharana and his family were not in chittor and kept fighting. Not even a single rajput surrendered to Akbar at Chittore. Rajput women and children commited johar.
Question of co-operating with a tyrant does not arise.
-Shivraj
Interesting Article To Read...
Once Were Warriors: The History of the Rajput--Rajasthan's history is inextricably entwined with that of its self-proclaimed aristocracy: a warrior clan, calling themselves the Rajput, that emerged sometime during the 6th and 7th centuries. Given that no one too low in the social hierarchy could take the profession (like bearing arms) of a higher caste, this new clan, comprising both indigenous people and foreign invaders such as the Huns, held a special "rebirth" ceremony -- purifying themselves with fire -- at Mount Abu, where they assigned themselves a mythical descent from the sun and the moon. In calling themselves Rajputs (a corruption of the word Raj Putra, "sons of princes"), they officially segregated themselves from the rest of society. Proud and bloodthirsty, yet with a strict code of honor, they were to dominate the history of the region right up until independence, and are still treated with deference by their mostly loyal subjects.
The Rajputs offered their subjects protection in return for revenue, and together formed a kind of loose kinship in which each leader was entitled to unequal shares within the territory of his clan. The term they used for this collective sharing of power was "brotherhood," but predictably the clan did not remain a homogenous unit, and bitter internecine wars were fought. Besides these ongoing internal battles, the Hindu Rajputs had to defend their territory from repeated invasions by the Mughals and Maharashtras, but given the Rajputs' ferocity and unconquerable spirit, the most skillful invasion came in the form of diplomacy, when the great Mughal emperor Akbar married the daughter of Raja Bihar Mal, ruler of the Kachchwaha Rajputs (Jaipur region), who then bore him his first son, Jahangir.
Jahangir was to become the next Mughal emperor, and the bond between Mughal and Rajput was cemented when he in turn married another Kachchwaha princess (his mother's niece). A period of tremendous prosperity for the Kachchwaha clan followed, as their military prowess helped the Mughals conquer large swaths of India in return for booty. But many of the Rajput clans -- particularly the Mewar (in the Udaipur region) -- were dismayed by what they saw as a capitulation to Mughal imperialism. In the end it was English diplomacy that truly tamed the maharajas. Rather than waste money and men going to war with the Rajput kings, the English offered them a treaty. This gave "the Britishers" control of Rajputana, but in return the empire recognized the royal status of the Rajputs and allowed them to keep the majority of the taxes extorted from their subjects and the many travelers who still plied the trade routes in the Thar Desert.
This resulted in a period of unprecedented decadence for the Rajputs, who now spent their days hunting for tigers, playing polo, and flying to Europe to stock up on the latest Cartier jewels and Belgian crystal. Legends abound of their spectacular hedonism, but perhaps the most famous surround the Maharaja Jay Singh of Alwar (north of Jaipur), who wore black silk gloves when he shook hands with the English king and reputedly used elderly women and children as tiger bait. When Singh visited the showrooms of Rolls-Royce in London, he was affronted when the salesman implied that he couldn't afford to purchase one of the sleek new models -- he promptly purchased 10, shipped them home, tore their roofs off, and used them to collect garbage. The English tolerated his bizarre behavior until, after being thrown from his horse during a polo match, he doused the animal with fuel and set it alight. Having ignored previous reports of child molestation, the horse-loving British finally acted with outrage and exiled him from the state.
Above all, the Rajput maharajas expressed their newfound wealth and decadence by embarking on a frenzied building spree, spending vast fortunes on gilding and furnishing new palaces and forts, which reached its peak in Jodhpur, with the completion of the Umaid Bhawan Palace in the 1930s, at the time the largest private residence in the world.
When the imperialists were finally forced to withdraw, the "special relationship" that existed between the Rajputs and the British was honored for another 3 decades -- they were allowed to keep their titles and enjoyed a large government-funded "pension," but their loyalty to the British, even during the bloody 1857 uprisings, was to cost them in the long run.
In 1972 Prime Minister Indira Gandhi -- sensibly, but no doubt in a bid to win popular votes -- stripped the Rajputs of both stipends and titles. This left the former aristocracy almost destitute, unable to maintain either their lifestyles or their sprawling properties.
While many sold their properties and retired to live in middle-class comfort in Delhi or Mumbai, still others started opening their doors to paying guests like Jackie Kennedy and members of the English aristocracy, who came to recapture the romance of Raj-era India. By the dawn of a new millennium, these once-proud warriors had become first-rate hoteliers, offering people from all walks of life the opportunity to experience the princely lifestyle of Rajasthan.
Hmm, very interesting point here, is that the 'all accepted foreign Invaders namely the British' were despised and all sorts of rebellions took place against them, the Rajasthanis accepted pensioner status from them, which is an opn fact that many writers who are overly romantic with their past seem to be ignoring. Perhaps THEY are the hypocrites who pick and choose their masters but rebuke other Rajputs in earlier history who alligned with other 'Foreign Invaders'.
Regional differences:-
Can someone provide evidence to help understand this query. If all Rajputs are descendants of Aryans, then why do Punjabi Rajputs look so different to Rajastani Rajputs? By Punjab I refer to Punjab of India and Pakistan as a whole. Unbroken lineages outside of the Rajput race leave no scope or space for external blood mixing yet the Rajastani Rajputs appear much smaller and darker in appearance than their Punjabi counterparts?
Tom, I feel your points are well made. For the above writers to rubbish a reputed and accepted Scholar such as Romila Thapar and call her work 'Bullshit' when it is taught in schools (a sign that even the government accepts this popularly) then yes as you say it is a troublesome point. I feel you may be targetted here because of your non Rajput roots although I would say that you are probably in a better position to comment here seeing as you aren't biased against any faith or people.
Maybe Surmendra and Shiv to take some lessons in respect and tolerance which is the greatest quality of a human being, as preached by Hinduism, the Religion their ancestors allegedly single handidly protected when all other Indians couldn't. THAT IS AN OFFENSIVE STATEMENT PERIOD. To say that other peoples protecting Hinduism was an exception rather than the rule is pure utter nonsense and indicative of a poor, stubborn, biased, alienated, hate filled, immoral, insecure and faithless mentality. It is God who protects his faith, not us. Or are you contesting this fact? I hope not...
To the rest of the peaceful writers, there is a heavy anti Islamic element from the Hindu Rajputs here which is blaming any and everyone Islamic for the actions of others, and sadly they cannot fathom Muslim Rajputs either. Considering that Muslim Rajputs were a dominant force in their respective regions and today are still just as dominant, this denial by a handful of ill informed haters will never amount to much more than silly digs. We were always Royal blood, are Royal blood, always will be Royal blood, no matter what our faith. To state our glory was only with Hinduism is a poorly informed and biased opinion rather than actual fact. I will put this into upper case for you, WE DO LOVE AND RESPECT HINDUISM. We cannot do otherwise, our Religion tells us to respect it and other faiths (even though some previous other rulers didnt choose to. To each their own) and we want to. But we are of a different faith which we find virtue in (even if you dont, free world pal) we have many Hindu friends who respect us and we respect them back unconditionally. You handful of Anti Islamists cannot deny our Royal blood and our tolerance for your kind of haters. You have always been beaten and always will be beaten by truth. The insecurity is in your minds and sadly, there is a lock on your intellect for which we do not have the key...
I think that is the key fact here. Royal blood. A Royal identity. A Rajput IS NOT A HINDU FAITH PROTECTOR no matter what you anti Islamists say. Your own Pundits have stated otherwise and refer to Muslim and even some Christian Rajputs as RAJPUTS. You have the above referred articles to prove that Kshatriya dharma (Warrior path) is dynamic and a mind set i.e. nurture. Nature is secondary and DOES NOT GUARANTEE Kshatriya status. YOU ARE WRONG, FACE IT AND ACCEPT IT. YOU ARE NOT HIGHER AUTHORITIES THAN A PUNDIT, so stop throwing your toys out of the pram, stop being personal and anti. You've been proven wrong on each count that you've described but cleverly/ignorantly avoid facing these facts. Rajput blood is stubborn, yes. Blood boils when hear something you dont like. But if you steer stubborness towards the right things i.e. good character, noble endevours and respect for all, then it is a positive thing. In some respects this proves the downfall of aristocracy, if each house preaches it's superiority at the expense of fabricating and theorising the past, insisiting on the inferiority of all others. If some decided by choice to embrace another faith, that is unfathomable by you that you hate and fabricate an entire notion of a mass population following a faith they dont want to? You can put a hundred biased authored books here, the facts will never change, period.
Rathores are the Suryavanshi descendants of Raja Ram of the Ramayan Saga. Whether they become Buddhist, Jew, Muslim, Christian THEY WILL ALWAYS ENJOY THE DESCENDANCY of such a great Luminary. You and your hater friends will never be able to change their Royal blood, period. But why explain, your obviously blind to this and many other facts brought before your eyes. Keep hating, you only hurt and feed your own egos.
Raja
Raja you have no idea about history. I bet, you can claim that muslim rajputs are actually descended from Ghori/Arabs and other muslims. To say rajputs descended from Huns is preposterous. It gives you a mental comfort in falsely beleiving that rajputs are not indigenous to India and are desccendants of huns/scythians etc as this allows you to extend this theory to identify your genealogy with later day invaders like Ghori/khilji etc who are revered in Pakistan and every one there wants to connect with there lines.
Accept the fact that if your ancestors were rajputs and converted to Islam it could only happen bcause they were trying to save there kingdom/position or were relatives of such a class of people. They did not convert voluntarily.
The sooner you accept it the better it is so that we can move on. If you do not you cannot convince any one else because we all know the truth.
-Shivraj
I have one simple suggestion. Can somebody tell me the size of the population of Pakistani Rajputs? This probably will decide the issue. I mean if there are only a few dozen families here and there, they can be ignored as a freak phenomenon risen becuase of the long winding history of India. But if the numbers runs into lakhs, then we must include Pakistani Rajput into general Rajput community.
-Khakhan
Back to the basics
The basic issue here is not about people claiming to be and then we take a census of the population. The basis of this arguement is that Rajput is a Hindu Jati with the Kashaktriya Caste, and this is a Caste System within the Hindu faith. If a person is not a Hindu, then the idea of claiming to be a Rajput is ridiculous. Furthermore, in Islam as far as I understand there are no castes, however even if there are, Rajput is not one of them since it is not part of the social hierarchy of Islamic society.
Furthermore, as we have repeated a thousand times on this discussion, you can loose your Jati, and thus if someone breaks the rules they can loose their Rajput desigantion, one of the main points being that if you convert than you are no longer a Rajput.
To add to this, not every Rajput is royal or from a royal family. If muslims are claiming that they are Rajputs, it is like a Nazi claiming he is a Jew, since there can be a possibility of Rajputs who were converted by force since the Islamic historians have recorded how they killed and tortured Rajputs to death. However, to claim something with complete disregard for the religion to which it belongs and the people who have maintained the history and culture is out right racist, intolerant and shows a pure hatred for things Hindu.
The person Raja, is simply on acid and needs to chill out and think for once in his life. As for Khakhan, on this basis if a million people suddenly claim to be Arabs in Pakistan, are they going to be treated as Arabs in the middle east without proof? Of course not, and Pakistanis are not treated with a lot of respect in Arab nations.
To simply claim something, hell we can all claim whatever, we could even calim to be descended from King ARthur, but that doesn't make it a fact. It just surprises me how much Pakistanis are clinging on to their Hindu roots.
As for Romilla Thapar, she has her opinions and although she is used as a standard source for most undergraduate Indian courses at the University, her claims are none the less questioned, since there is a lot of evidence against many of he claims. At the graduate level, Thapar is not considered a good source, and we were always told to read her accounts with a grain of salt since she is afterall a JNU professor, thus a University that was founded by a corrupt government for its own political agenda.
As for the claim by a lot of the loonies on this discussion board that say Pundits still refer to Muslims and Christians as Rajputs. Give me a break, first of all just because someone is a Pundit does not give the authority, nor do Rajputs always recognise the Brahmins as authorities. That in itself showed how much you know about dynamics in Hindu society. Furthermore, Non-hindus are not allowed into many sacred shrines, such Jagganath. And on that point, any ass-munch who had taken a South Asian Studies undergraduate course would have learned that Muslims are referred to as Malechas, and to claim that pundits are still calling them Rajputs is complete nonsense. And to Raja, one more thing, to simply use that ridiculous tactic of labelling the other group anti-Islamic simply because we are stating facts and truth is really pathetic. Instead you are the Anti-Hindu, Anti-Christian, Anti-Jew, Anti-Buddhist, Pro-Taliban, Pro-Al-Quaida, Pro-Terrorist type of person who would want to steal our heritage and history, thus hijacking it for your own personal agendas (just go to www.jihadwatch.org and check out all the links about how tolerant you are, yeah really tolerant). You have shown more intolerance and thus don't try to BS and play of calling us the oppressor when history itself bears witness that it was our people who were persecuted. And as Wolpert stated in his "New History of India": The Rajputs were the Vanguard of Hindu India against the Islamic onslaught.
And if any of you start throwing all the "Rajput were conquered" crap by leaving out huge sections of history, that further proves that you are not Rajputs since you rejoice in the defeat of Rajputs.
-Sumerendra
