Talk:Shekhawati

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shekhawati article.
Article policies
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...
Archive
Archives
  1. March 2006 – May 2006

Contents

[edit] Enough already!

I've went ahead and archived the conversation. I was hoping to see some improvement over the issue, but find a lot of personal attacks, and bickering. The article hasn't improved either. I'm hoping that the part with the farmers would be fully sourced and neutural. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 07:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Can we just delete the material that has no citations?

The origins of the name of this area, Shekhawati are never in dispute. What's the point of bringing in random pieces of information that have no bearing on fact? It is a fact that this region is named after the sons of MahaRao Shekha, who are called Shekhawat. Where's the link to Arabic names? Why are you trying to muddy history here?? 69.232.209.237 06:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The citations have been provided by the author hence the matter can not be deleted. It is vandalism. the basis of word Shekhawati has been explained with citations and evidences. Why to delete it. There should be strong counter evidence against it. 59.95.97.75 09:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone, somewhere publishes a wrong interpretation, it does not mean that it is correct. If we started including every published work as an incontrovertible truth, then what's the point of having WikiPedia? I am sure you can find published works which, say, claim that Indians are backward people (for example, you will find textbooks in Pakistan which claim that Hindus are backward and dirty); would that make it true? Use some common sense, man. 69.232.209.237 14:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


There is no harm if some useful theory is kept for discussion which ultimately may lead to some new discoveries. It is a knowledge which is not harming any body. Rao Sekha is related with Sheikh, which is an arabian word so there is very likely that the persian word Sheekh may be its origin. We have to prove before rejecting. You should come forward with strong evidence to reject. How do you say it is wrong. Unless otherwise proved it has to be retained. 59.95.104.104 15:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


I am a Shekhawat. I have never heard of this Arabian word theory. Please do not distort my family name. Thank you. AShekhawat 18:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Response> Mr Shekavat just because you yourself are unaware of the history of the name, does not mean you can or should delete content, which does not suit your personal views.


Many people are unaware of the etymology of a word/name. To historians/researchers this kind of information is very valuable.

Why would you wish to delete the information/data ?

This is an encyclopedia. Its purpose is to collect data and information.

The poster has provided references/citations of published material.

If the material is incorrect then please point out the errors, and we will support your views.

Until then the material stands.

Ravi Chaudhary 02:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of Shekhawati

Research is a continuous process. The established theories keep on changing. As per records it is a known fact that Shekhawati gets its name from Rao Shekha (1433-1488). It has been admitted and this finds priority placed at number one. It is interesting to know what was the seen in Shekhawati area prior to rule of Shekhawats in this. What was name of this region prior to rule of Shekhawat Rajputs. It is a historical fact that who ever was a ruler in India or any part of it named in his own name. That is why names of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras have changed.

I tried to search old records and found that much prior to Rao Shekha there are a number of villages in Rajasthan with name Shekha. The earliest mention is by James Tod: Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan (1829). He has mentioned about the rule of Godara (clan) Jats in Jangladesh with their capital at Sheikhsar prior to its annexation by Rathore ruler Bida.

“Godara Jats were the rulers in Jangladesh before Rathores annexed it. They are found in large number in areas of formerly princely state of Bikaner. Chieftains of Sheikhsar and Radanvan belong to this gotra. Bika Rathor was made a King by the people of this very gotra.”Godara This village Sheikhsar is situated in present Bikaner district of Rajasthan near the border of Hanumangarh and Churu districts.

Another very old ancient village is Shekhwas in Laxmangarh tehsil of Sikar district. Similarly third very old ancient village is also in Sikar district called Shekhisar near border of Churu district. It supports the theory that naming villages after Shekha was common in this area prior to Rao Shekha also. It is thus necessary to retain the theory given about origin of Shekhawati. burdak 04:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There have many books been written on this topic. It has been well researched. It is a fact that Maharao Shekha's sons were Shekhawat, and this region is named after them. I know my family history well. You Jats are deliberately insulting me, my family and my clan; this is a very big insult and will not be tolerated.

I know WikiPedia's rules well. Just because you claim (not verified) to find one source which propounds a crackpot theory, it does not mean that it is true.

AShekhawat 05:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Response>>

Mr Shekavat,

This is silly language?

You write: 'Lay off this page'

You have been asked to provide the evidence for your theory

You write;

"There have many books been written on this topic. It has been well researched"

"I know my family history well"

Well all that is being asked of you, since you are so convinced you are right, is to provide the evidence and the relevant excerpts.

Is that too hard?

I note you have reverted the material twice. Wiki does have a three revert rule, whereby reversion of referenced content is considered vandalism.


Why do you wish to go that route?

Provide your evidence.

How much time do you need?

Is a week enough? Say June 30.2006.

If you cannot provide it, then the material stands, and you continue to your trollism . and you will be put up for vandalism

Ravi Chaudhary 12:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


>>> (response by 59.95.100.245) >>

Do not take personal. It is history that we are discussing. Deletion will not help. Keep open mind and come forward with facts so that we can come to some conclusion. Deletion indicates there is some thing you want to hide. It is not Shekhawat we are discussing. It is Shekhawati. All kinds of people and all castes live there. So if you have some theory or documents to support bring them. It is free and open encyclopedia. So please do not delete. Thanks 59.95.100.245 13:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Choudhary, why are you asking me for evidence, when a simple Google search will give you 1000s of websites which make this claim? Who are you to ask for evidence about my name? Who made you in charge? You have a Jat bias: to remove any reference to Rajput history and put your own Jat stamp on it. Just because one unverified Jat says something, it does not make it history. Go do a Google search and come back. Till then, wrong material will be deleted.

And Mr. 59.95.100.245: the main page is not for discussing history; it is for facts. If you want to discuss the history, this is the page for it. Understood? Identify yourself if you're going to edit this page. It looks like you and Mr. Chodhary are the same: this is called sock puppet editing and is strictly banned under Wiki rules. AShekhawat 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Response> Mr Shekavat

Please stop getting worked up, and stop making silly accusations.

My IP is quite easy to find and check.

My contributions are also quite extensive, both here and elsewhere. I am moderator for the Yahoo Jathistory group.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/

You are welcome to join and argue your case there too.

However by your making these personal attacks you are attempting to cloud the issue and the research.

The Shekawati questionis being explored, and will continue to be explored.

Your throwing a few tantrums on the internet will not stop this.

Generally speaking we find that when people have no facts to support their theories,and what they post, they go in for personal attacks, just like you doing right now


So far you have provided no evidence for your claim.

As I said, is a week, to June 30, 2006 enough time for you? Do you need more time?


Ravi Chaudhary 18:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section deleted by User:AShekhawat.

User:AShekhawat has deleted the following from the article. As per policy, I've pasted it here for discussion:

Shekhawati thus gets its name from Sheikh. Sheikh' or Shaikh, also rendered as Sheik, Shaykh or Sheikh (Arabic: شيخ), is a word in the arabic language meaning elder of a tribe, lord, revered old man, or Islamic scholar. A daughter or wife of a Sheikh (lord) is sometimes called Sheikhah (Arabic:شيخة).

About origin of word Shekhawati 'Hakim Yusuf Jhunjhunuvi' gives another view. According to him Shekhawati derives its name from Persian language word ‘Sheekh’ which means ‘Sand deposited on the costal area of sea’. This indicates that this area has been inundated with seawater long back and converted to sand dunes over thousands of years. [1]

Justice Kan Singh Parihar, the retired Judge of High Court of Rajasthan, has written about exploitation of farmers by Jagirdars prior to Independence as under:

“Every thing that the Kisan had, never treated as his own. In Jagir areas all cultivators were really landless. There was no tenancy law and one could be thrown away from the land one cultivated at the pleasure of Jagirdar, his "malik". In most of the Jagirs a Jagirdar would in the first instance be taking fifty percent of the produce. This would be taken by actual division of the produce on the thrashing floor or by appraisal of the standing crop (kunta). Then over and above the share of the produce the Kisan had to pay numerous "lags" or cesses.

Together with the share of the produce known as "Hasil" these cesses meant that the Kisans had to part with more than eighty percent of their produce. The findings of the Sukhdeonarain Committee in the years 1940-42 bear this out. If a Kisan had to marry his daughter he had to pay "Chavri Lag" if he held a dinner then a "Kansa Lag"; if members of the family separated then "Dhunwa Lag" and so on. If the Jagirdar had a guest then fodder for his mount had to be supplied. Then there was "begar" that is forced labour, for tilling the personal lands of the Jagirdar. The homestead in which the Kisan lived in the Abadi had to be vacated in case he ceased cultivating the land. He could not alienate the plot to anyone.” [2]

Well, the first part looks fine to me, although it needs some grammar edits. The second part has been suject to heated debate. This latest version looks like a copyright violation. We're supposed to summarize a statement, not copy parts of it. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 19:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Response>>

LBmixpro

In research papers, providing quotes from a work is perfectly OK, as long as the required citation is provided.

This has been done.

The author has provided evidence and a citation from a Judge and the Court document. What other evidence would be needed.

I disagree there has been heated debate.

Debate means two points of view, evidence and counter evidence.

All we have seen is on one side Mr. Burdak, provide evidence, and the other group so far anonymous, revert the posts, with lots of ,the internet equivalent of ,shouting and screaming.

Shouting and screaming does not a good argument make!

If a judicial document is not acceptable as a valid citation, what is?


Ravi Chaudhary 02:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)



I am not the subject of this article, but my family name (which goes back 500 years) is. I am trying to keep out superfluous and unverified theories. Just because it is WikiPedia it does not mean that every crackpot theory out there should find a position of prominence.
Unfortunately, I am not in India right now otherwise I would list out many such books (chapter and verse) which go into this topic. However, I can list out various websites (found via a web search) which mention the origin of the name of this region (which is named after our clan):
  • Destination Rajasthan: Shekhawati is named after its ruler Rao Shekha of the 15th century.
  • Dundlod Fort: The village of Dundlod lies in the heart of Shekhawati. Shekhawati is named after Shekha of Amarsar, who came to be known as Rao Shekhaji.
  • Horse Riding in India: The region is called Shekhawati and is named after Rao Shekhaji who declared his independence from the rulers of Jaipur in 1471.
  • And finally, we have from the Indian Embassy's site: Shekhawati is named after its ruler Rao Shekha of the I5th century.
Are these enough references?

Yeah, I am pissed, and I have every right to be at these two: Burdak and Chodhary, who are going around vandalising pages. When will WikiPedia ban these two?? AShekhawat 20:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are great citations, perfect enough for the article. I'll take it that your sources are correct. I doubt the two are deliberately trying to mess up the article, but I know that second area about the farmers has been taken down before. The only way they can be banned is through the arbitration commitee, and they only take cases when all other measures have failed. (PS: When we reply to people here, we usually start with ":", which make indents. You wouldn't mind if I format your reply. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another citation which will, hopefully, put this to rest (but I doubt it, because these two will be back later). Community and Public Culture: The Marwaris in Calcutta, c. 1897-1997, by Anne Hardgrove (Columbia University Press). Chapter 3, Merchant Houses as Spectacles of Modernity: The region of Shekhawati is located in northeastern Rajasthan, between the cities of Jaipur, Delhi, and Bikaner. Although for administrative purposes the area is today divided into the districts of Churu, Jhunjhunu, and Sikar, in everyday speech the region collectively retains the name of Shekhawati, as it has been known for some 500 years. The name is traced to the fifteenth-century Rajput ruler Rao Shekha, whose descendants established themselves in this region during the slow decline of the Mughal Empire, which ended with Aurengzeb's death in 1707. The Rajputs of Shekhawati encouraged trade in the region by charging lower tariffs than did neighboring regions. As a result, this desert region became a crossroads for trade caravans traveling from Gujarat in the southwest to northern India, as well as to Central Asia and China. Merchant families from all over Rajasthan moved to Shekhawati to establish themselves as trading agents along such routes.

I only have access to the online edition via Gutenberg-e, and the chapter is at [1]. ISBN: 0-231-12216-0 . Web page: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023112/0231122160.HTM AShekhawat 20:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Separating issues


Mr Shekavat

You are mixing issues( as usual if one may add).

The term Shekhvati, could very well originate from Shekha of 15th century,the son of Mokhal. The web references you are providing, only indicate that the region is named afte Sheka, and that can be a separate discussion.

The issue is how the name Shekha came about.Now if The Arab Sheikh Burhan had something to do wth the birth of the son, and that is why the name Shekha was given to the Sheka of 15th century, this is interesting information, from a historical perspective.

Why are you so eager to whitewash it away?

You still have time to provide some valid references, - to June 30. Ravi Chaudhary 02:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Who are you to give me a deadline, Mr. Chodary? I have given conclusive evidence. Take your deadlines and your crackpot theories elsewhere. AShekhawat 04:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


What Mr Shekhawat is proving is that Shekhawati gets its name from 'Rao Shekha' is undisputed. It is there in the article. He is disputing the second theory about origin of Shekhawati. He has to give strong evidence to reject it otherwise since it is provided with references and can not be deleted. The second part regarding farmers is not a copy right violation since it is quoted with reference from an article and not from a website. It is a paragraph of a larger article useful to this section of Wikipedia. There seems no point to delete it. 59.95.98.64 03:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Why should an undisputed fact (your words) have to compete with a crackpot theory? Just because it has a dubious reference doesn't make it correct, or a theory for that matter. You have something to add here? Sign up for an account and add it. Anonymous cowards' words do not have much weight. AShekhawat 04:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a knowledge based encyclopedia and is continuously growing. We have to keep it expanding. When a new concept is published by an author it can not be washed off. It is published matter regarding the persian theory of Shekhawati by 'Mansukh Ranwa' which has been quoted as reference. It is also there in another book by Mr 'Sahiram' with the title "Ek Adhuri kranti". So it can not be said that the reference is dubious. At least the three authors are to support this theory. Search from persian records and if it is wrong then it can be deleted. I am the author of article Shekhawati and trying to expand it. Mr Shekhawat is supposed to add some more contents to expand. How can we declare that henceforth there will be no expansion of this article. It is not against any clan. We are searching the Shekhawati region. The rulers have been always manipulating history in their favour. It is a well known fact that Indian history is biased and not properly recorded. So alternate theories should always be welcomed. Thanks burdak 05:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Do you people have any idea what you are talking about? Your theories and hypotheses are laughably bad. Shekhawat is for descendents of MahaRao Shekha Ji, just like other Rajput names: Chundawat, Ghemawat, Shaktawat, Nathawat, Champawat, Shehrawat, etc. AShekhawat 06:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shekhawat, we are not disputing the origin of Shekhawat clan. They are the descendants of Rao Shekha. They are brave people. They have got place in History. I was the person to write this thing first on wikipedia about Shekhawat. We are discussing the land and area called 'Shekhawati'. If you have any knowledge about this area prior to Shekhawat, kindly provide that for support. The first theory which states that it gets name from Rao Shekha. The second theory states that it gets name from persian word 'Sheekha'. Marwar also has got two theories about its name. So is there any harm if two theories are given about Shekhawati. It not against any body. Shekhawati means the land of Shekha. It must have existed prior to Shekha's birth also. What was its name at that time. The people of Rajasthan have migrated from Central Asia and it is likely that they carried with them persian words. Many clan names in Rajasthan find origin in Persian language. So the second theory of persian origin is also convincing. Will you also think about the saint Shekh Burhan, who gives name to Rao Shekha. The things go past to the arabian links. Have you any details about 'Shekh Burhan'. In that case problem can be solved. Thanks burdak 10:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Ann Hardgrove's recently published book (linked above) indisputably states that this region is named after MahaRao Shekha Ji. This is not the only book out there; there are many more. Do you have a book published by a reputable place like Columbia University Press which makes a different claim? If yes, then please post it in the discussion list. If not, then end of discussion. Keep in mind that since you're offering a theory which goes against 500 years of accepted beliefs, the burden of proof is very high for you! I know where you are going with these claims about the name: you want to somehow "prove" that Jats were responsible for the name. This is sheer lunacy. Let history be what it is; stop trying to rewrite it to fit your current political beliefs.


Shekhawati stands for land of Shekha. Messrs Chaudhary, Burdak and ilk have dug out a couple of obscure village names sounding similar and begun a wild goose hunt and wild speculation to obfuscte the established well known origin of this name from Maharao Shekha. Moreover, Shekhawati is a region and not a village.

Messrs Chaudhary, Burdak and ilk are a group of people actively engaged in fabricating history for Jats.

Their plea is that no one ever wrote any history of Jats. Now they are writing imaginary histories. For this they have to destroy actual histories.

They have no references to cite other than those that come from their own Jat group or those that they are able to manufacture from so called "etymological studies"

They can go to any lengths including etymological similarities to link to Jat to Jutland, Mann of Germany to Mann Jats and so on. To see the bizzare conjectures just have to visit the Yahoo group which Ravi Chaudhary has set up and refers.

He should not be allowed to transfer those fabrications to Wikipedia. Such ill intentioned, even though I must admit clever, posters will seriously damage the credibility of Wikipedia if unchecked and unmoderated.


Thank you for pointing out what I suspected all along. This is the Achilles' heel of WikiPedia: a cabal of crackpots can decide to rewrite a slice of history, and unless someone else is alert, it will quietly slip in unnoticed. Once it gets into Wiki and gets indexed by the search engines, it comes up in search results; from there, some chaps will copy it into print; and then these print books become the "references" that this cabal needs, and the circle is complete.
Well, this and other pages are on my watchlist, and I'll be damned if I'll let these guys distort history.
AShekhawat 20:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


RESPONSE>> June 30 is 7 days away!

You can spend your time on personal attacks or providing evidence!

Take your choice! Ravi Chaudhary 03:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


One must learn to read before asking for evidence. AShekhawat 04:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC) To Ravi Chaudhary, Wikipedia is not a place for theorising. You say, "There is no harm if some useful theory is kept for discussion which ultimately may lead to some new discoveries. It is a knowledge which is not harming any body. Rao Sekha is related with Sheikh, which is an arabian word so there is very likely that the persian word Sheekh may be its origin. We have to prove before rejecting. You should come forward with strong evidence to reject. How do you say it is wrong. Unless otherwise proved it has to be retained" You are going from the name of a person Sheikh to arabian word to persian..you could as well jump to Greek!! This is queer convoluted and faulty logic. You will in this manner find thousands of other words starting with "SH" and ending in "K" and "KH" and built up some argument to distort Shekhawat, Shekhawati history and with similar 'etymological studies' other aspects of Indian history.

You might succeed unnoticed if you try this with pre-history but Rao Shekha is very recent and belongs to a period when records and history books had begun to be written by Muslim, Hindu and of course French and British historians and travellers. You have no source but your 'etymological studies'.

How strange is your approach! You write fiction and you want everyone to accept it like the Prophet's word or provide evidence to the contrary!! Your activites bring to mind Nazi Goebbel's propaganda. Write motivated untruths and half-truths, fudge issues and facts, recycle and recirculate the falsehood, quote and requote the falsehoods....

[edit] The evidences from literature

The theory of Shekhawati getting name from Shekha also is being propagated mostly by the commercial sites on internet to advertise their forts or palaces. They are lacking old historical evidences of repute. Narmally such a big land is not named after a perticular person in India. Areas or lands are named after its phisical characters. Moreover it is interpreted as the 'garden of Sheka' is not justified. This land at that time was not like a garden. It was a barren land. It is necessary to find from cultural , historical or literal evidences also. Sikar town in Shekhawati also is supposed to get name from Rao Shekha. We have to see meaning in sanskrit language also. The arabian language also has adopted many sanskrit words. We find from Marut's Mega Dictionar (Hindi - English) that the meaning of

  • Sikar = सीकर - a drop of water,sweat,perspiration.
  • sheikhy = शिखी means peacock
  • sheikha = शिखा means top, branch
  • Sikas = सीकस means a barren, unfertile, unproductive land.
  • The Famous poet of Rajasthani language 'Kanhaiyalal Sethia' has also published his famous poetry on Rajasthan धरती धोरा री which sings आ धरती धोरा री meaning 'the land of sand dunes', आ धरती मीठा मोरा री meaning 'the land of sweet peacocks'. All these evidences indicate about this land either the land of sand dunes, or the un productive land or the land of peacocks. These are evident also if you go through in this region. Thus the name of Sheikha in Shekhawati was not there in ealier periods but it was later adopted to suit the Rao Shekha. This region during Vedic times was called Matsya [2] This indicates that in much earlier ancient periods it was full of water as the name Matsya indicates. Moreover the River sarswati was also flowing west of this region. Later it became sandy area. It supports the persian origin theory getting name from 'Sheek' word. Thus the sanskrit words and persian word is in favour of getting name from sanskrit word 'Sheikha' or the persian word 'Sheek'. Thanks burdak 13:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ravi Chaudhary, That was quite an 'etymological' endeavor even though rather laboured! But not much to show for it; I want to avoid stronger words.

You are coming out with conjectures to support your bias. You say, "..propagated mostly by the commercial sites on internet to advertise their forts or palaces. They are lacking old historical evidences of repute. Narmally such a big land is not named after a perticular person in India." This is baseless. One may have nothing against your prejudices but when they negate or distort well known, documented historical facts it needs to be pointed out. What makes you think that such big lands are not named after a particular person in India?

Let me give you just a small sample of names of regions in India which are named after people and not geographical features - Aurangabad district is named after Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, Ahirwal is the name of the region in Haryana which is dominated by Ahir clan (around Rewari), Tanwarwati (close to Shekhawati) is the land of the Tanwar Rajput clan, Bundelkhand in MP state is the region of the Bundelas, Baghelkhand is the region of the Baghels, Marathwada of Marathas, Baluchistan is the land of the Baluch tribes, Gujerat is land of Gujjars, Kathiawad is land of Kathis, Assam is the land of the Ahom kings and there are innumerable such examples and Shekhawati is the land of the Shekhawats (the sons of Shekha)59.145.136.1 15:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to >>59.145.136.1]


You are mixing up my posts with other posters

Mr Burdak has provided a number of alternatives. Nothing wrong with that.

That is the kind of material,thinking, and logic , that research is all about.


There is an analomy here, something odd about the name ""Shekha"" and it's history.

I will research this!

Ravi Chaudhary 15:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Mr. Burdak: you are presenting random facts pulled together for the sole purpose of trying to "justify" a totaly baseless claim. Please give it up; it is pointless. Given any name, and all the languages in the world, I am sure anyone can find a tenuous link with anything else. Please keep in mind that we have not taken objection to your story about Pilani town being named after a Pilania; there is anecdotal evidence to support that claim, and I am fine with it. Facts are facts; let them be. Do not try to distort facts because they don't fit your view of history.
Mr. Chodhary, the front page of WikiPedia is not for discussion; it is for facts. This page here is for discussion. Put your theories here if you want to. Leave the front page alone.
AShekhawat 00:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Mr Shekavat

One notes that you have difficulty in spelling my name!

The front page of wikipedia in many articles contains many references to myth and fantasy. If your logic is followed , myth and fantasy is fact.

An encylopedia by its very definition will contain information, with different interpretations.

Obviously some of these will conflict.One of your difficulties lies in the matter, that you do not appear to be able to deal with contrary accounts.


What was a simple article, about a region, shekabati, is now raising the question of the 'Shekavat' clan/ comunity.

How it came about?. How did the name come about? Who was this Muslim Sheik Burdan? why was Mokal's son named after him? what other cultural changes came about because of this relationship in the Shekavats?


You are attempting to intefere with research. These attempts will not always give you the results you set out to achieve.

You still have 3 days to come up with evidence.

So far , all you have done is to make personal attacks.

Was it worth it?

Ravi Chaudhary 01:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Mr. Chodhari, if you can't even spell Shekhawati correctly, what value are we to give to your research capabilities on the subject?
As for references, I already gave them on 22 June above. Please read this thread in its entirety; you might find what you're looking for (you may not like what you read; but sometimes truth is like that). AShekhawat 02:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To Ravi Chaudhary,

                What if someone says, "You are a moron. You have 3 days to give evidence to the contrary."   Do you get the logic of what you are writing??

59.145.136.1 13:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Response>>

I do note you are continuing your personal attacks by mis- spelling my name.This has been pointed out to you, but you continue to do so.

You gave a bunch of internet references which Mr Burdak commented on, as being from web- sites advertising hotels etc.

The other was from someone called Hardgrove, in a book about the Marwari traders!!

Why do you consider Hardgrove to be a superior source, to an Indic reference?

Some Indians have this chip on their shoulder that a reference from England or USA is automatically superior to any reference originating from India or an Indian author.


The discussion is about a number of issues:

1) How did the 'Shekha'come about? not about whether 'Shekhavati' means coming from -'Shekha'

2) About the abuse of the local population by the local rajput jagirdars,( with Islamic and later British support), the resistance by the local population,and the final remmoval of the Jagirdari system..


On 1) Mr Burdak has provided a number of alternative theories. the one popular with the Shekavats is that the name Shekha was given to the son of Mokal, because his youngest wife Nirbanji, was ' blessed' by a Muslim fakir called Sheik Burhan see" History of the Shekavats', 2001, Ranvir Sinh, Jaipur ISBN 8186782745. the original source per Ranbir Sinh is a bard (Kavi) Chand. I will ad more from this book, and also from Todd etcin time.

Mr Burdak has also provided, the alternative theories. That is the usual, reasonable way to proceed in research.


On 2) Mr Burdak has provided a concise summary of the statement of affairs in the Shekavati area,under the rajput Jagirdars. He has backed this up with published literature, including evidence from the results of a judicial inquiry.

Now against that , you and a few others, have simply indulged in personal attacks, shouting and screaming- a standard tactic, of hoping that noise will drown out logic.


You were given a reasonable time from June 22, 2006 to June 30, 2006- 8 days. You were asked if you needed more time, to come up with any evidence you had to counter what Mr Burdak had put forward.

You have done neither, and are now complaining as to why you are expected to meet a June 30 deadline.

Well If you could not come up with evidence in your favour by this time, it is unlikely that will be able to do so later.

However just to be on the safe side, would you like more time? Would an additional week, until July 7, 2006 be enough for you? Do you still need more time?


Let us eee waht you come up with!

My proposal is and has been quite simple, after July 7,Mr Burdak's version will stand,

If you do not come up with anything better than what you could until now, then we must ask you to stop interfering and vandalizing this page.

If in the future , you come up wth contrary evidence, that will be discussed, and your version accepted.

I suspect you will find no support from WIKI admin,or anyone else, if you continue down this path .


Ravi Chaudhary 04:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


REGIONS and PLACES are NAMED AFTER DOMINANT PEOPLES and PERSONALITIES in INDIA Mr Ravi Chaudhary,

               Firstly, why are you spelling his name as Shekavat when as per the way it is commonly written, the way he spells it  and as per the phonetics it should be Shekhawat? Wonder if it is  an etymological attack or experiment!!

Secondly, why do you not acknowledge that places and regions are named after the inhabiting/dominant peoples and leading personalites and not named after non existent mythical rivers?? I have give so many examples without any research. You have not replied - perhaps still researching.

If I do an 'etymological research' a la Ravi Chaudhary no place on the face of the earth would be found to be named after anything but names of persons and peoples.

Please desist from pursuing a narrow parochial agenda and do not post unverified conjectures merely to suit your political aims directed at obtaining prominence for yourself in your Jat community.

59.145.136.1 14:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Mr. Chodhari, you write "I do note you are continuing your personal attacks by mis- spelling my name.This has been pointed out to you, but you continue to do so.". Are you misspelling Shekhawat and Shekhawati for the same reason? I wanted you to admit this, and I have succeeded. :)
Secondly: one of the references I have given above is to an Indian Embassy (Government of India) website. Please read it; you apparently have a knack for ignoring facts which go counter to your half-assed theories.
Thirdly: Ann Hardgrove's well-researched book is about Marwaris, but goes into the history of the region. If you had bothered to read the Shekhawati page, you would know that Marwaris are a community from Shekhawati. Since the book is not about Shekhawats, it can be considered as an authentic third-party reference. Elementary research methodology, my dear friend.
Fourthly: the official Jhunjhunu district website says: Jhunjhunu district is a part of Shekhawati. It is called Shakhawati(sic) after the name of Rao-Shekha. He was a great warrior. He established his kingdom far and wide. He ruled over this territory for many years. He died in the year 1488, near Ralawta.
Fifthly: you are in absolutely no position to set any "deadlines". If you can't even spell the name of the topic at hand, you have absolutely no credibility in this argument!
We have provided indisputable, well-researched proof here. You have provided nothing other than personal attacks and threats of deadlines. If you do continue to vandalise the page, we will report you to the Admins.
Have a nice day. AShekhawat 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by LRBurdak

[edit] Comment on the contents of sites mentioned

  • Most of the sites as I quoted earlier are prepared with the purpose of advertising their forts so these being commercial sites can not be used as verifiable sources to support facts.
  • If you analyze facts mentioned on these they prove fictitious. For example the following site on Mandawa:


http://www.ashextourism.com/hotelsresorts/Rajasthan/castleMandawa.htm

Tells us that - “ Rao Shekha had three queens. Disheartened that none of his three wives could bear him a son, Rao Mokul sought the blessings of Sheikh Burhan, a Muslim fakir, who directed him to graze cows to seek the the blessings of Gopinathji, a manifestation of Lord Krishna. Gopinathji was the principal deity whom he had been directed to worship by Madhavanandji Goswami, the guru of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.A son was born in 1433. In gratitude, Mokul named him Shekha, after the Sheikh.”

Now Mr AShekhawat you tell me:

  • Is this not a false story?
  • If one can not get son that means he has some biological deficiency. Then how can he get son with blessings of somebody?
  • Why Shekha was named after ‘Sheikh Burhan’ and not after the deity ‘Gopinathji’ who was principal deity?
  • It means there are hidden facts in this story which have been intentionally not mentioned. The Shekhawati publuc knows it better.

[edit] Follow NPV policy

History has to be written on true facts and not on imaginary facts coined by the Bards, Charans or Bhats. The History of Shekhawati was written with a view to support the Muslim rule in Rajasthan. Akbar gave them the title of Rao for their support in Gujrat. Because of Rajputs supported the Muslim rule the entire state was called Rajputana. Where as the population of Rajputs was half of The Jat population at that time. History tells us that Shekhawats could go to any extent to support Muslims to rule in Shekhawati.

According to Dr DK Taknet,a famous author from Shekhawati, has mentioned that Shekhawati included Jhunjhunwati, Amarsarwati,Udaipurwati, Sikarwati, Fatehpurwati, and Khandelawati. Later on when Shekhawat Jagirdars changed their capital to Sikar it was called Sikarwati. I have explained earlier the meaning of Sikar given in literature.

It has to maintain neutral point of view. Mr Shekhawat is trying to glorify his own clan without any facts to prove otherwise. It is against the policy of wikipedia. How can he reject content properly cited and well researched which does not suit and which do not glorify his clan Shekhawat.

[edit] Personal attacks

Mr Ashekhawat is indulging in personal attacks and threatenning which is clear from his following comments quoted from above contents of discussion:

  • “I'll be damned if I'll let these guys distort history”
  • “Shekhawati is the land of the Shekhawats (the sons of Shekha) “
  • “Lay off this page.”
  • “Burdak and Chodhary, who are going around vandalising pages. When will WikiPedia ban these two??”
  • “Your theories and hypotheses are laughably bad.”
  • “This is sheer lunacy.”
  • “How strange is your approach!”
  • “Mr. Burdak: you are presenting random facts pulled together for the sole purpose of trying to "justify" a totaly baseless claim. Please give it up; it is pointless.”

These are against the policy of Wikipedia.

So far Mr Ashekhawat has provided no evidence for his claims.

He is disputing the second theory about origin of Shekhawati. He has to give strong evidence to reject it otherwise since it is provided with references and can not be deleted. The second theory states that it gets name from persian word 'Sheekh'. burdak 03:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

====RAVI and BURDAK- Pls dont post a POV inspired by your Political Agenda Ravi Chaudhary and Burdak, You are definitely writing things which can easily qualify to be described as 'sheer lunacy', 'strange' ....such as distorting names of towns by suffixing '-wati'.

Why are you on about Charans and Bhats, about who supported Muslim rule when the whole discussion is about the name of the region called Shekhawati?? Why are you deliberately creating confusion?? Why this peevishness?? Never heard of this 'famous' Taknet 59.145.136.1 15:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Shekhawat I have cited the book in the article Shekhawati itself It is: Taknet, D.K, Marwari Samaj Aur Brijmohan Birla, Indian Institute of Marwari Entrepreneurship, Jaipur, 1993 ISBN 8185878005. The book gives details about Shekhawati and the facts about Pilani history which you have commented above are from this book itself. About this book and the author comments have been given by PV Narsingh Rao, Chandra Shekhar, Atal Bihar Bajpai, Dr Karn Singh, Dr Raja J Chalaiya, Khuswant Singh etc. What else certificate do you need about the author ? burdak 15:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
On the one hand, Mr. Chodhari says "The other was from someone called Hardgrove, in a book about the Marwari traders!!". On the other hand, Mr. Burdak is quoting a book about..... Marwari Traders! Can't you two decide whether it is OK to quote a book about Marwari Traders or not?
This is getting ridiculous. Both of you, Mr. Chodhari and Mr. Burdak, are contradicting each other and yourselves, in a vain attempt at pushing your own severely slanted point of view.
Calling out your theories as "laughable" and "ridiculous" are not personal attacks; these are just facts.
Have a nice day.
AShekhawat 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The user user:61.0.201.46 has deleted a large content from history section of Sekhawati and replaced with history of only Shekhawats which was for limited period only. It is biased and glorified history which is against Wiki policy. It may be reverted. burdak 03:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

User:61.0.201.227, has removed Dispute, Bias and Unref tags from this article witout discussing on its talk page. It is vandalism. Please discuss. Provide evidences insupport of it. Till that time do not remove these tags. --burdak 13:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


It is obvious that Burdak and Ravi Chaudhary are in the business of manufacturing History for their political and personal parochial agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.108.9 (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Heritage Hotels

The section "Royal Heritage Hotels" seem ads and should be removed as per policy of Wikipedia. burdak 16:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shekhawati a dynasty?

Shekhawati is a region and not a dynasty. It seems this article is being used to project Shekhawats who were not rulers but Jagirdars under Jaipur state who in turn was under Muslim rulers at Delhi. If dynasty is to be discussed it should be in the article of Shekhawats. Some of the statements are too generalized and need citations. So I have placed citations tags. Shekhawati was not a rich region during the jagirdari of Shekhawats. The farmers' movements would not have started otherwise.burdak (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)