Talk:Tomar nee Attrish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

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.

This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.

[edit] Tomars are Gurjars

Tomars and tanwars are Gujjars by origin, They first ruled delhi and still the Tomars of delhi are Gujjars:

You rajputs are actually illegitimate children of Gujjars and Jats. I have beaten all the Rajputs ALL ENDS UP at allempires forum.. That too before the international biradari. Everyone on that forum now believes that there were NO RAJPUTS prior to Moghals.

I had given 1000 of links and 1000 of books referances to prove my points. Even on this page i gave 5-6 rock solid proofs from world known historians that clearly tell everyone that Tomars along with Pratihars, PArmar , chalukya and chauhans were pure Gurjars.

But some sick Rajput who hasnt read anything apart from The fake Rajput history doesnt wanna come out of his kiddish fantasies, He so deleted my links and other reliable info.

Look up u RAJPUTs .. the whole world knows about your reality.... search RAjput and illegitimate word on google. (or either of these he he he).. u will find ur reality and then type Gujjars or Gurjara..

[edit] Toors are not Tomars

the Toors are completely different from the Tomars.

Response: I do believe you are correct and the main article needs to be edited until it can be asserted that Toor's are the same. I know for a fact that there are White Toors, Muslim Toors, Hindu Toors, and Sikh Toors.

It is my belief based on the wide variety of Toor's that the last name evolved out of the Semitic regions. If one were to assert that Toor's were and always have been Sikhs, they would be wrong because Toor men in all likelyhood would never convert their religion, so there has to be some other explanation of Muslim and Hindu Toors. For any of this to happen the surname Toor must date back to very ancient times, in order for them to be able to settle and assimilate to the varying cultures the Toor surname belong's too. 66.214.201.5 02:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Majority of Tomars

Majority of Tomars in north India as of now are idetified as Rajputs, who are are fundamentally farmers by their livelihood.

[edit] Tomars are Jats

The Tomar clan are a well known clan of Jats.

The term 'Rajput' did not exist at the time of their rule in Delhi( circa 8th Century CE) and North India.

The ruling family of Gwalior, started to call themsleves as 'Rajputs' in the 16th century and that line has been , erroneously adopted in Indian history textbooks.

Much material on this has been posted on the discussion group

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

see: post A history of the Jat Tomars (1),

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/2720

and follow up posts and discussions

I am posting this for discussion, before I start making changes to the main article!

Ravi Chaudhary 19:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats wierd because Thakur Deshraj who wrote books on Jats reckoned the Rajputs appeared around 8th century? Are you getting your facts wrong ravi? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rahpal (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

U say that Word Rajput didnt exist at the time of Tomar rule in Dlehi.

Now who were Chauhans of Ajmer and Rathores of Kannauj at that time? Maybe as per your logic Jats.

Jats never ruled any state at that time. The social status of jats was not of rulers at that period in History.

[edit] Tomars Rajput. Jats never ruled any state before Bharatpur

Tomars are Rajputs. Jats didnt ruled any state before Bharatpur and Later Dholpur. When Tomars ruled the social status of Jats was nothing but Farming. They use to till Land of Rajput Kings and Nobles.

After the fall of Prithviraj Chauhan, islamic invaders started killing Tomars, as they were providing resitance for a long time. During this some Tomars mixed with Jat population.So we some Jats having Tomar as Surname.

response> You should study some history, instead of posting opinions.

The term 'rajput' does not exist pre 12 th century CE.It only comes into prominenece later because of their support to the Islamic invaders and later to the british invaders.

See [[1]] in wikipedia for starters

" A main factor in this success was indubitably his co-option of native Rajput chiefs into his empire-building project; his reign countenanced, for the first time, the involvement of Hindus in the affairs of the empire. The Rajput chiefs collaborated with alacrity, an alliance cemented by marriage, with numerous Rajput noblewomen being wed to mughal grandees. The Kachwahas were the first to give a daughter to Akbar; they pioneered a trend that soon turned pervasive and played no small role in extending Rajput influence across the Indian sub-continent, from Bengal to Afghanistan to the Deccan. Indeed, two successive mughal emperors, Jehangir and Shah Jehan, were born to Rajput mothers.

Rajput chiefs served as mughal officers and administrators across the mughal empire and enjoyed much influence in the government. In this period, the aristocratic image of the Rajputs can be said to have finally crystallized; consequently, caste-divisions became rigid. The trend of political relations between Rajput states and the central power was the precursor for similar relations between them and the British"

I can point you other evidence, as and when you are ready.

The 'Rathore' is an offshoot of Rathi, a Jat goth/clan.

You are too hung up on ruling community? whom did this community rule over/ where did it come from?

Apparently you have never heard of the Jat republics, the Yaudheyas, the Mallas, Virks, etc.

The Jats also had monarchial states- Chandra Gupta Maurya, The Dharan Guptas, Harsh Vardhan, Yashodaraman Virk of Mandsor, The Tomars of Delhi and Punjab, who also had a republic the Tomar Desh Khap of Western U.P. India.

If the Tomars would not mix with the Jat population, whom should they mix with ?

Of the Tomars only one small branch started to call themselves rajput in the 17th century, at Gwalior. there too the majority of Tomars were and still call themselves Jat.

for the story of the origin of the Gwalior Tomars see

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/2819

for the history of the Delhi Tomars see Tomars of Delhi

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/2720

for an histiry of the Tomar Khap( republic) see

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/2756 Tomars of Desh Khap

Rishab, try not to make a mockery of Wikipedia,

Provide evidence , not opinions!

In the meantime, please stop vandalizing!

You should discuss this on the Yahoo jathistory forum or a forum of your choice

Ravi Chaudhary 01:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

As for farming upto 200 years ago, the agriculture was the economic driver, and those who controlled it controlled the means of production- wealth of the nation. the most prodcutoive land in North was and still is in the hands of the Jats- punjba, Haryana, U.P, Rajastan.

[edit] Jats were farming lands when Rajputs ruled.

U say that Word Rajput didnt exist at the time of Tomar rule in Dlehi.

Now who were Chauhans of Ajmer and Rathores of Kannauj at that time? Maybe as per your logic Jats.

Jats never ruled any state at that time. The social status of jats was not of rulers at that period in History.They were farmers and still are farmers in Majority.

Jats used to till land of Rajputs and were not a ruling community.

Response>>

For a history of the Chauhan see:

The earlier name appears to be Chahman

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/2791

There also plenty of Chauhan Jats. Chauhan is also found among the Gujars

This questions has been discussed in detail, with much emperical evidence.

You shoud study the matter before commenting further.

It is only in Rajastan, where the new class of rajput got support/jagirs from their Islamic masters, and later the British rulers , that the Jats( with all the comunities) were oppressed. The Jats led the resistance,and that yoke was broken in early 20th century, as British power declined.

There is much material about this resistance on the Jathistory group. There are plenty of references and pointers to other published material.

see for example

THE PRAJAPATI YAGYA AND THE JATS OF SIKAR. SHEKAVATI http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/3120

Jats in Bikaner http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/3013

Jats in Rajastan- an article on the resistance http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/2960

If you are interested in History, you will find much material there

Ravi Chaudhary 01:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Response:

Chauhan and Chahman are same, Pawar and Parmar are same. Solanki and Chalukya are same. Some Rajput surnames are also found among Jats.And we all know why. They are a result of Rajput father and Jat mother. They were excommunicated by Rajputs and absorbed by Jats as their own. So u see those Rajput surnames among Jats.

And about jagirs owned by Rajputs. Rajputs were ruling before islamic invasion. All major clans of Rajputs had ruling kingdoms before that. These kingdoms and Jagirs they got by their Blade and Blood, not by the mercy of any Govt. which abolished zamindari and gave land to people who were farming them. Jats are biggest beneficiary of this so called Land Reforms and Harit Kranti. Other wise their status would have been like Gujjars.

U always provide refrences of articles written by Jats. Where you are engaged in self boasting. Past historical records dont show that. Otherwise jats would have been identified as Martial race not Rajputs.

Please provide logical and strong reasoning.Just by mentioning same jat history articles writen by jats wont help.

' Response to Rishab> '

Jagir is an urdu word, imported by the Arab muslism. Thye were the only ones who could grant Jagirs and they did exactly that to Rajputs, who acted as their military contractors.

As for ruling, rajput is a class. Only a few rajput families got Jagirs, the rest of those who took on a Rajput identity, were farmers beholden to their Master in the havelli, just like everyone else, and that too only in some parts of Rajstahn, when it was under Islamic or British rule.

If you bother to go through the Rajput Wiki article, and standard history books you will reach no other conclusion.

If you do we will discuss it, but first you have to go through the material.

Have you done that? It does not look like it.

Tomars are 95 % found in Western U.P, from Mathura/ Bharatpur through Agra, Hathras, Aligarh, to Muzzafarnagar, to Haryana, and East Punjab. These are all Tomar Viilages. They represeent one of the biggest Khaps,( republics)in the area, known as "Desh". I will write on that separately.

Oney one branch, small, moved to the Gwalior area, and there too, most of the Tomars are jats. If you get a chnace to go there, take a tour of the area.

Now ask yourself why they are over 95 % Jat?

Ravi Chaudhary 02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Ravi Chaudhary

You are hell bent on providing link to that Jat History pages on yahoo. Got any other refrence. And if you Jats were kings and ruling India, then why were u tilling lands of Rajputs? So u admitted Rajput Superiority and started working as laboureres in their Lands and jagirs.

About Tomar villages, u are claiming every Tomar as jat, so just by counting people with Surname Tomar u are considering them as Jats.

In India most of the words of General usage have been derived from foreign words or have a foreign origin, but are used

[edit] Where were Jats when History was being Written ??

Where were Jats History was written. Probably tilling lands of Rajputs.

Its not me, but you are making a mockery of Wikipedia. U are citing refences of Jat History, written by Jats

I clearly told u I can provide many such refrences about Rajput History. This wont do Ravi, I said provide some Logical resoning.

And u told u that word Rajput was not in existence till 12th century? Same can be said about Jats.

About calling Mauryas, Harshvardhan as jats is absolutely foolish and total mockery of Indian History.

And Jat states. Where were those jat rulers when India was raided by muslims? Tilling lands in backyard of their palace? And why they dont have any recorded history. Its only you who people are now coming with such hypothetical stories.

And if one Rajput house gave its Daughter to Mughal, then it doesnt mean that all Rajputs did that.Its Rajputs who fought islamic invaders. Sikhs (khalsa) came very late. And when muslims were plundering village populationa (inculding jats) and raping women, it was only Rajputs who provide resistance.

RESPONSE>

Not quite.

The history as taught in Indian history texts was based on Islamic sources, and composed by the British Colonialists

That is to be expected, as they were ruled in India for 250 years.

Their version of history , for that is all it is, is being challenged on every front , from their Aryan Invasion theories, to what is your interest, and you are trying to defend, the glorification of Islamic and rajput “’ domination””.

If you look a little closer, without the rose colored glasses, you find that the Rajput term is synonymous with the rise of Islam in India. It is then glorified by the British, for the Rajput class, supported their new master.

Todd is very clear in his book- 'Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan' on this, and I will provide quotes for the general reader, if this thread continues along these lines.

Everyone else‘s history was ignored. The Jats resisted, first Islamic rule and then British rule. The Jats are always reviled in Islamic literature for this. They resisted the rajput- Islamic alliance. They led the other communities in this resistance. even many rajput farmers/peasants joined the Jats in this ongoing war.

The 1857 war of Indian independence failed in large part because the Rajput Jagirdars joined the British to protect their Jagirs and helped with troops . They were not loved , and alliance with an invader, was the only way they could have any hope of keeping their hold on the populace. Rajput history is replete with examples( visit any rajput ‘princely' states web page), of how they were richly rewarded for their loyal service to the Islamic forces. Do you wish me to provide the links?

A lot of Jat history material was destroyed when the 1857 war was lost. You wish to read about that, then go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_rebellion_of_1857 See Also 1857war.doc - Indian Independence war - 1857 and the Jats

Recent research is bringing more and more of this information to the fore.

The Yahoo Jat history list is but a small archive of the data that is coming together.

The Surajmal Education Society holds annual conferences on this very subject every year in India. In the last one, in April 2006, over 50 papers were presented by faculty of History Departments, from various Universities.

The material coming forth tells a very different story than that what has been told so far.

I suggest, you take a deep breath, go through the Jathistory group archives for a start, and then have a serious discussion.

In the meantime, please stop this vandalism.

Reverting the Jat Regiment page,and leaving a blank page, is vandalism, and it did you absolutely no good.

Ravi Chaudhary 02:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Antiquity of the Jat name.

I will not go into this in detail here.

Best you go the the Jat article, and the Jathistory archives.

Maur/ Maurya is a Jat Clan, Virk is one, and so is Bains, Harsh is either Virk or Bains. The second Guptas are Dharan, a Jat clan, and they in their early seals call themslves Gutasya( of the Gut/Juts/Jats).

Pinini 6th century BCE mentions the Jats, so does another great grammarian Chandra (5th century CE). Todd found an inscription of the Jat king Salindra dated 4th century CE in Rajasthan.

I can go on and on. Why do you not spend some time in reading the material? Would that not be more educative?

You can then draw your own conclusions on valid material, insted of blind belief!

Ravi Chaudhary 03:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Another response: One of the earliest resistance to Muslims by Sahi dynasty(Sindh) is worth attention. Other small resistances are not well known among historians. Jats lived in republic confederacy (panchayats) so they might not have given unified resiatance as it would have been possible under a monarch rulers. I could quote Todd where he says Jats didn't stylize themselves as Rajputs did borrowing cultural habits from Muslims, like Harems. Rajputs of Mewar resisted but most of them supported Mughals. Who conspired arrest of Shivaji? We know what we learn from books and they leave some stereotypical image of certain groups. That doesn't mean that thats whole truth. Vishnuvardhan Virk was of course a Jat and so was Harsha, but they were known better as clan names than term "Jat", which gained popularity later. Jat clan names themselves tell lot of history. These efforts are not to malign any particular community but to unearthen true history.

-vinod

Bold text== Rajputs are really kaputs as per your logic ==

Rajputs are really kaputs as per your logic

One very Logical Point. Since u are providing similarity in Surname work Jat origin of Tomar, Rathore, Chauhans etc. Then Jats and Jatav(Scheduled Caste) are same. U can see the similarity in surname. So all jats have originated from Jatavs. This very well establishes the proof that Jats were not rulers but doing lowly work and have evolved from Jatavs.

→ [DrBrij replies]Ever heard of a Yadav king? And yet, the God Krishna was one - or based on one. The term "rajput" only came into vogue when the Brahmins, feeling the threat of the demise of casteism, converted some kings into a new caste, and named them "rajputs" to make them feel superior. It was a con job, but the vanity of kings has always been their weak point. This conversion gained the Brahmins the backing of the power of the states, while the kings got the "divine" halo around them through the religious propaganda by the brahmins. It was, and is, an incestuous relationship devoid of any connection to reality. The advent of Islam merely forced the Hindu kings to forge a common identity, opposed to the new religion. And reality got forced into oblivion.

Response by Rishab Singh Solanki The only Royal family of Present day Haryana is a Yadav, and they use the Title Rao. Lord Krishna was a Yadav. And your replies are not an answer to the point raised by me. When u say similarity in surname/name as reason for jat linkage, then I just pointed the most similiar surname to jats i.e. jatavs.

[DrBrij replies2] And rajputs are derived from kaputs, eh? You will make up any bullshit just to fill space here?! The title Rao is used by landowners (like Narsimha Rao). There is no Yadav king in Haryana, or ever was that I can recall. Your intellect is far too feeble to comprehend that linkages by name of clans has a far different meaning than others.

[rishab]Better get your facts right instead of pointing those Jat histoy pages. And since u said, jats were a ruling class, so where did all their kingdoms vanish all of sudden?Why jats were tilling the lands of Rajputs landlords? Histroy is not written but Made. The blood of Rajputs, speaks for them and their deeds and everyone (even muslims and British) recosgnise it. You claiming of self glory is ridiculous.

→ [DrBrij replies] Why don't you argue history instead of ranting out your prejudices? The history of north India has always seen a shifting power balance between egalitarian cultures (like Jats), and feudal cultures such as casteist Brahminism which created the "rajputs". The battle between egalitarian cultures and feudal cultures is ancient, and some people shifted sides when the feudal system benefited them. Better thinking, however, always brought egalitarian ideas back into power.

Response by Rishab Singh Solanki Now just by abusing Brahmnins and saying that they created Rajputs,u mean to say that Brahmins were ruling India. So were jats (Rulers) sleeping. If they had power, then they could have get things done their way. History is written by men, but events/facts are made by might. Rajputs had power and they ruled most of the India. So jats if they were strong and rulers should have stopped them from ruling. Where were they??Probably tilling land and waiting for harvest.

[DrBrij replies2] My god, man, I seriously doubt that there is any community that would feel proud to have you as its member. WHERE do you think rajputs came from? Did you even read my earlier post? Your "might" is in fantasy, just like all your ancestors that gave away daughters to buy safety, or burnt their own women out of fear of the Muslims.

[rishab]Jats never ruled any state before Bharatpur. And Surajmal, got the title of Raja only because of the Magnanimity of Maharaja of Jaipur. About claiming Mauryas as jats. Well the community is very much alive in UP/Bihar. Why dont u visit them and ask them whether they are jats or not.

→[DrBrij replies] That would be like asking you about your "kingdom". Is that the extent of your rajput "logic"? It would be far more logical, from a Jat's point of view, to have DNA studies done for any clue about ethnic origins. As for the title of Raja, that is laughable. Bharatpur Jats had an army that defied the Mughals as well as the rajputs (collaborators of the Mughals).

Still, in the tradition of the Jat fairness, I will direct you to this link which discusses the Maurya question with insights and historical references:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/iranic_identity_of_mauryas1.php

Response by Rishab Singh Solanki

Just by winning one war with a Weak Mughal power and u are claiming yourslef to be equal to Rajputs. Rajputs fought many wars with Invaders and were weak due to infighting. Also many people conspired against them. The fort of Alwar was captured by Rajputs from Jats.

And about Maurya as Jats. Why u feel pride in mentioning yourslef as of Iranian origin. U know about Parsis, the original people of Iran. They are not a martial race and is a trader class.They were routed by Alexander and many more and finally after islamic invasion, their kingdom vanished. So if u are descendent of those, I dont mind.

And why not ask Mauryas, who are in sizeable population in UP/Bihar, about who they are.

[DrBrij replies2] You don't read before you spew new garbage, do you? Read the paper mentioned in the link, not the title of the link - if you have any brains at all, you will see that the title has little to do with the paper on Mauryan identity. Sheesh, the arrogant ignorance of your kind!

This article needs to be corrected. The descendants of the Tomar (Tanwar) rulers of Delhi are presently settled in the region called Tanwarawati (adjacent to the Shekhawati region). The head of the clan has for several centuries been based at a place called Patan also refered as Jilo Patan. After Anangpal, the Tomars have never been prominent in history except for a brief period under Man Singh at Gwalior who however has not been recognised as the successor in the line of Delhi Tomar(Tanwar) kings. This is well known and Col Tod also mentions this this fact in his book. The present head is Rao Sahib DIGVIJAY SINGH, Rao of Patan.59.145.136.1 10:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Response>

The article does not need to be correctedfor that.The 'Patan' situation is mentioned in the main article.

"Some of the descendants of the Tomars moved to Rajasthan and established the Patan state near Jaipur"

The 'Tomars' did not lose prominence.

In Western U.P they established a number of Khaps,( republics) the prominent being called 'Desh". They were very active in the history of the region.

Ditto for the region of 'Braj' Mathura -Agra. There are many spin off collateral clans.

It is just the Indian history is written from a few accounts,by colonial historians, like Tod, and the republican societies did not get any notice.

If you wish to read more, go tho the Jathistory group

This is changing!

Ravi Chaudhary 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, you have attempted to white wash an entire history of a rajput clan and tried to make it suddenly Jat all the way through? Thats rubbish. Many tribes have Jat counterparts or people with similar names. It doesn't suddenly make them one and the same all over again? Take your silly claims and save it for your forums where you lie about history mate. *** unsigned comment by Rahpal (Talk | contribs) Ravi Chaudhary

Not so, what we are doing is taking the clan name and tracing its history and evolution over the ages.

Why not leave it at that?

Ravi Chaudhary 19:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rajput and Jat

Why does one have to fight over being superior, whether rajput or jat. there is a lot of difference between the two races, yet some historians claim that the jat race was also a ruling class once. If one really cares to notice, he will notice that the rajput and jat sometimes look quite similar in appearance. somehow they lost their ruling status long ago, yet one cannot ignore the fact that they have been excellent soldiers throughout. Many Rajput kIngs employed them in their armies, and they were valued soldiers. The Indian Military too has awarded many gallantry awards to the jat, before and after independence, including the Param Veer Chakra.

After the Indian Mutiny the British Military realized that the soldiers from Bengal and surrounding ares were not truly martial. Therefore, they did a study on the various races of India, and after actually fighting wars against the Sikhs (Punjab), Gurkha's (Nepal) Mahrathas (Maharashtra) and Jats (Bharatpur, and central India), they realized that these were really the true martial Races of India. After the Mutiny new Regiments were raised, which comprised only of these above mentioned races, and they have stood the test of time. wherever one is staying in India, there will be a Military Cantonment nearby. One of these Regiments will always be posted in one of them. The Indian Soldier has fought in all the great wars, and they have proved time and again that they are one of the best soldiers in the world.

Coming back to the difference between the Rajput and the Jat, i would say that both are martial. The only difference is that the rajput has blue blood in him, and he takes intense pride in his ancestry, which makes him immensely proud. The Rajput belongs to the ruling class of India, he would never work in the fields, warfare is his one and only calling. Whereas the Jat does not really belong to the ruling class of India, barring a few places. Warfare is not his calling unless pushed by an enemy, nevertheless once he steps in the battlefield he is a formidable foe.

The ruling Chiefs and sardars of the Punjab belong to the jat class, they pronounce jat in a different manner thats all, and they have embraced Sikhism. The Sikhs are reputed to be one of the finest soldiers in the whole world. All the sikh chiefs including Maharaja Ranjit Singh belonged to the jat class. Once upon a time they were just farmers, but during the Indian invasions there ancestors were the most to suffer, because the invaders always came through Punjab. This is how they embraced Sikhism and became a ruling martial class in the Punjab. Ranjit singh even invaded jammu and Kashmir and the other hill states which were ruled by Rajput Kings since time immemorial and made them his subordinates. But that did not last for long, the Rajputs managed to have their justified revenge in the end. But the fact is that the jat Sikhs managed to come in equal standing with the rajputs, if only for a brief period of time. Some mahratha Clans also claim Rajput ancestry, the great mahratha Shivaji also had to claim Rajput ancestry to become a King, because no Hindu can become King unless he is a Khsatriya. The fact is that even if some distant ancestor of a person was rajput, it cannot raise him to the class of a khsatriya, because to be a Rajput, one has to have a pure bloodline from both mother and father, once that bloodline is broken by marrying into another race or caste, the person ceases to be rajput, But whether Shivaji was a Rajput or not, he deserved the Rajput status, because he was their equal in valor.

There is something about the Rajput, which makes him so fascinating. No matter what clan a rajput belongs to, there will be many legends attached to its history. No matter whether the Rajput is poor or has a good social standing, he will always be extremely proud of his royal ancestry. The rajput took great pride in fighting wars for his King, who was the Head of the clan, he would gladly lay down his life for his King. Wherever one travels in this country he will always get to hear about legendary Rajput tales, get to see remains of some ancient forts, where the Rajput defended his faith, hand in hand with his king and clansmen, and fought till the last man fell. Stories like this obviously draw admiration and respect, for the Rajput Race. A Rajput never compromises on his honour, for which he will he do anything. Not many martial races in the world can claim to have the rule of fighting till the last man, which the Rajputs did. Dying on the battlefield is the greatest honor for the Rajput, he will never turn away from the battlefield, even if he is the last man, because he will never miss a chance to be on the Rajput roll of honor. No race in the world has the ceremony of Johar, which is considered the greatest of all the personal scarifices.

The oldest Royal families in the world are Rajput, and after reading history of the martial races of the world one would come to conclude that, there is really no parallel, to the account of the Rajput Race. I have not tried to place the Rajput on the top of the roll of honour. I just wanted to state some facts. I would just add one more thing before i finish, that is, the Rajput, Jat, Mahratha, and the other Martial races of India, furnish the finest soldiers in the world, and this fact is supported by the Indian Military, and its preecessor the British Military, which fought against these soldiers, and also, hand in hand like brothers in arms.

--117.195.0.53 08:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Saurav Singh Pathania.

Great to see the Rajput style of spoiling the history...

I am still eager to find just one reliable book which talks about Rajputs as a caste before the moghul period.

Most of the historians claim rightly that "some of the Gurjars became rajputs" or they were the illegitimate children of Gurjar Kings who could not be regarded as Yuvraj, rajkumar or raja were called as rajputs. These rajputs worked as the revenue collectors of Their Gurjar overloards. If u get a few good history books you will notice that Under the administration of medival kings Rajput was a post engaged in revenue collection.

Later they joined the Moghals against their nation and were discussed in babarnama for the first time. (as the military servants of Moghuls)

Though I am not at all interested in this mud slinging racial debate but cant see someone providing wrong info at wikipedia ( a source of knowledge to the new learners)

After intense debate on this (discussing many topics and almost every aspect) on allempires.net, Ishwa and other Rajput scholars also believed it as truth that Rajput is a mixture of various ruling castes (though it was a very respectble solution to the rajpoot origin problem)

And u talk about purity of blood and chronology?

Did u notice brahmins of Himachal and kumaun area converting themselves into Rajputs (thakurs as they call themselves) as late as in the 1920-30s.

Hidden categories: Articles to be expanded since January 2007 | All articles to be expanded

Talk:Tomar nee Attrish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Tomars are Gurjars

[edit] Toors are not Tomars

[edit] Majority of Tomars

[edit] Tomars are Jats

[edit] Tomars Rajput. Jats never ruled any state before Bharatpur

[edit] Jats were farming lands when Rajputs ruled.

[edit] Where were Jats when History was being Written ??

[edit] Rajput and Jat

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search