Talk:Rajput/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Rajput. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Hi All !

I am Nitinsinh Raulji, from Vadodara, Gujarat and relate to Solanki Shakha of Rajputs who ruled mostly in Gujarat.

I have been reading the archieves for some time now, and find the clash of opinions of some fellow members quite interesting.

Before I fully join the discussion and express my biased or unbiased :-) opinian, I would summarise foll. points :

1. Though Rajputs means Sons of Royals. Its the only community found in the history of the world, who are known for bravery, self-esteem, love for freedom, patriotism, self-less sacrifices for upholding the values, protection of the weak, etc..

2. Though, there is not any written history of Civilizations available prior to 3000 yrs ago due to Shruti (Mouth to Ear) parampara of Vedic and Pre-vedic knowledge. There are several Indian scripts which refer to Aryans civilization ruling the world. One can refer to "Ramayan" and ances-tree of Lord Rama. Also, Persia is name derived after Bhagwan Parshuram and any wonders why Germans call themselves Aryans ?

3. Islamic civilizations' destructive forces made its devastaing effects on Indus (Hindu) civilization while it was on the peak of civilization which offered/enjoyed complete freedom of belief, values and presented to the world with Buddhism and Jainism subscribing to Non-violence and Peace. Kingdom of Rajasthan and Sind followed traditional Hinduism, Patliputra/ Magadh (Now Bihar) followed Buddhism and Patan of Gujarat were influenced by Jainism.

4. While defining Rajput, I understand, a Rajput is a Kshtriya who belonged to Royals.

Hope you will agree with above points. I hope to join you soon.

Jay Mataji,

Nitinsinh

This discussion

Would it be possible for this discussion to be moved to another website? There are many web forums on which you can discuss these topics. Hindunet, for example. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia is not a chatroom. In fact, Wikipedia users are authorized to remove personal attacks from talk pages, and this pages is absolutely bursting with them. Please cease and desist immediately. --goethean ॐ 19:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is not a chat room but it is the responsibility of the people to bring out the true views about the historic incidents that comply with the strickest of the incidental verifications. The debate started because the article presented here is biased and has forged historical content in it and hence does not serve the purpose of an unbiased platform of information. Can Wikipedia users help us out with this?

--Khurram 21:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes of course. Please briefly describe the problems with the article. I have removed a large section of the article which consisted of unsubstantiated assertions. Perhaps that will lessen some of the issues. Please do not unilaterally add any material to the article. Let's discuss each addition before making the article any larger. --goethean ॐ 22:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Goethean. I hope that finally we can make some progress on this article and shed some real light on the topic. Thanks for your above point Khurram.

Raja

Goethean,

I am listing the conflicting points briefly as you suggested.

1. Being a Rajput is a matter of lineage and a person can be Rajput irrespective of the religion he/she practices. If we take the argument that only a person believing in the caste system i.e., some people are superior to others by birth, then only a few sects of Hinduism can be called Rajputs since this idealogy is loosing its impact in the younger generation of Hindus as well.

You are pushing a theory which holds no water. Rajputs can only be from Hindu religion. If you had your way soon some of you would be claiming that followers of Ghori etc are also rajputs. Check with other Pakistani rajputs many of whom want to identify themselves with Arabs/Turks/Ghoris etc. --comment by 203.101.50.154 (talk · contribs)

But if thats the case why are Ghakkar Kayanis who are ultimately of Sassanid origin called Ghakkar Rajputs? (Iranian Shahi Dynasty which ruled Iran for approx 600years before Ghakkar Shah-the patriarch came to India with Shahabuddin Ghauri) They are widely recognised as a Rajput clan owing to their similar characteristics and royal lineage yet they are neither Chadravanshi, Suryavanshi or Agni kula? - Raja

Raja, Everybody has there own tongue and can speak whatever they feel like. Ghakkar Kayanis are not rajputs today. If they ever descended from rajputs it had to be only hindu rajputs. Iranians/Sassanids etc CANNOT be rajputs. To me it seems these ghakkars may have rajput ancestry but after converting to Islam they thought it is better politically to trace there origin to "the pure Islam".

-Shivraj

Shivraj, I have removed a personal attack from your response. Please be civil.

All of this chatter is completely irrelevant to the article. Why? Because you need to cite sources in order to have any of this opinion included in the article. You need to pinpoint exactly which scholars have published these opinions, and on which page. --goethean ॐ 20:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I am really surprised by your efforts Gothean and very thankful that you've stuck to your word. You really are a breath of freh air! Ok guys let's clean up this article and hopefully get some head way once and for all about Rajput history is really about. Thanks again Gothean.

--[[User:|Raja]] 15:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)--[[User:|Raja]] 15:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

2. There is a whole long section titled as "Preservance of Hindu Dharma in Bharat by Rajputs" with the implication that Rajputs of India fought for their religion. This claim is not supported by the incidental evidence of the time. The wars that were fought during those times were mainly of territorial nature and there are abundant examples of them being so. We often see Hindu Rajputs and Muslim rulers aligning their forces against different dynasties irrespective of their religion. The author of the article comes up with a single example of Chittor and is trying to prove the whole war as a Holy War. Had this been the case, there shouldn't be any Rajput fighting against Chittor and Chittor shouldn't have ever been a subject to the Mughal Empire. I would suggest that we remove that portion and if necessary, include a brief and comprehensive reference to the activites of different Rajput dynasties during the Mughal and British rule.

You have been repeatedly given evidence that if your temples were broken/desecrated by every muslim king who waged a war against rajputs why would rajputs sit idle and not fight for there religion? You have not provided any evidence to support your thesis. You mentioned names of hindu converted kings who had no locus standi on the policy of mughals. --comment by 203.101.50.154 (talk · contribs)

Can we make these changes?

Change can only be accepted if you provide evidence. Rhetoric and beleifs do not matter. The article on Battles clearly elucidates which rajputs clans were the standard bearers in each generation. Initially rajputs rallied around Chauhans/ then around Sisodiyas and finally around Rathores. Yet you just see that article as mentioning Sisodiyas. What are you reading? --comment by 203.101.50.154 (talk · contribs)

Raja,

You are welcome my brother.

Khurram 14:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It is extremely unfortunate that an anonymous editor reverted my change and reinserted the unacceptable text back into the article. I am trying to have a peacefire here and I view this as uncooperative behavior. Now I feel that I need to involve an administrator, who can freeze the text from being edited and who can also block the IP addresses of uncooperative editors — anonymous or not. Here are just a few of the unprofessional, unacceptable phrases that are used in the inserted text.

Muslims started attacking India within a few decades of the birth of islam. For a few hundred years they had no success.

What is wrong with this statement? Is this historically incorrect? If you do not like the exact english words used feel free to change them --comment by 203.101.50.154 (talk · contribs)

So much for the bravery of Turks/Arabs etc.

This I agree can be taken out because on this discussion page some muslims were vehemently arguing that ghoris/turks etc were far superior fighters/commanders etc as compared to rajputs. I wrote that article in response to this false propaganda. --comment by 203.101.50.154 (talk · contribs)

The Sesodias of Mewar were not yet recovered from Rana Sangha's treacherous defeat.

What is wrong with this statement? Have you read Tod and his description of battle between Sanga and Babur? --anonymous comment by 203.101.50.154 (talk · contribs)

The preservance of HINDUISM in India by the rajput sword against the entire might of Islamic rulers is the most glorious achievement by a race in the annals of world history and every one should know this fact, more so Indians and most definitely each and every rajput.

What is wrong with this? I agree this needs to add Marathas and Sikhs as well. --comment by 203.101.50.154 (talk · contribs)

-Shivraj

Shivraj: This is an extremely one-sided, biased, and opinionated statement. Wikipedia is not in the business of praising a particular religion at the expense of another. Wikipedia's goal is the creation of neutral information that is not prejudiced against any religion. Your text is at odds with Wikipedia's goal. Please read and understand Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy before contributing any more text to Wikipedia articles. --goethean ॐ 16:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sivraj: I have reverted your disruptive reposting of excessive amounts of archived material. I can read it in the archives. --goethean ॐ 17:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Goethean: This is strange. You asked a question which was already discussed and when I cut and pasted the original discussion u removed it. Similar question will have a similar answer and what better way to reply then cut and paste from earlier discussion? --unsigned comment by 203.101.50.154 (talk · contribs)

I find your cutting and pasting of pages upon pages of text into this discussion to be disruptive and unhelpful. As I said, I can read the archives myself. --goethean ॐ 18:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and Wikipedia's manual of style, so that your future contributions have a better chance of being kept rather than sparking an edit war. --goethean ॐ 15:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, now you know what the problem is. If you wish I think I can help you find out the "anonymous" editors.

Khurram 15:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Khurram, I have removed your taunting and unhelpful remarks. Please be civil. --goethean ॐ 16:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Goethean,

I have no objections upon your actions. Hopefully you will understand my frustration after a couple of days of arguments here. Lets pray that you survive.

Khurram 17:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Biased historians

People here should read Shades of Sword by MJ Akbar who happens to be very educated and a journalist from India. In this book he traces the wars of muslims against others and mentions 1192 Ghori routing Prithviraj. This book was published in last few years. Now ask yourself why is he not mentioning the rout of Ghori in 1178 and 1191? Answer is simple because it is a tendency in muslim chroniclers to portray there victors as larger then life figures. This trend started in the very beginning and still continuing today. This is the reason why we have acrimony right now. Muslims have been given an incorrect/onesided version of there history and they just want to beleive that. They want to revel in the fact the Babur was a Ghazi or Khilji was the greatest general etc. When "other side" is presented they start claiming you are anti muslim etc.

-Shivraj

removal of poor bibliographic information

In a few days, I will be removing all entries in the "References" section that lack publication information. Please see here for correct reference style guidelines. --goethean ॐ 17:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Complaint

Goethean, You are towing Khurram's line. Khurram has never produced evidence to support his claims. has he given it to you and that this the reason you are reverting my edits to his? -Shivraj

Please. I don't need a degree in Indian history to see that your "more detailed history" section consists of unconcealed anti-Muslim prejudice, rumor and innuendo. The writing is terrible, and frankly does not meet the minimum standard of Wikipedia articles. I feel that it bloats the article and that it should be deleted completely and immediately. Khurram's changes to that section have done nothing but improve the article. If you feel that he is in error, then produce evidence to support that claim. I wish that I had more time to spend researching and correcting your sloppy mistakes. I urge you to improve the section rather than continue to engage in edit war. --goethean ॐ 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Goethean. In what sense is the article improved? Why do you claim the article is anti muslim? If you say something back it up. You have made a big deal in making me produce details from the books. Have you or Khurram produced same level of details? Do not think you have some high moral authority here to edit other's work. Khurram todate has not provided single evidence to back up his claim that I asked him earlier. We can take it up with wikepedia administrators if you like. Cluelessness has to go away. Sorry.

-Shivraj

Shivraj,

Let me say that I am not aware of any proof that you asked me for. What I have provided to you was simple logic that every historian uses to determine the truth of a fact. In the paragraph that you have qouted I was making the point that even if Akbar did kill 30000 people, he didn't do it for Islam. And furthermore in your post you have mentioned that "few sources suggest" indicating that it is not an agreed upon fact. Although there are many things in the article as Goethean has mentioned that needs to be updated/corrected, I didn't do so since I want to confirm my edits before making any correction. I have already mentioned that one can find a whole lot of prejudice information written in the books and qoute them to draw conclusions but is it enough? I have not done anything in the past but present you with the evidence, from your own posts that negate your ideas. If you want, I can provide you with an equal number of biased history books that say exactly the opposite. Will it lead us anywhere? What myself and I think everyone else in this talk is urging you to do is think like a true researcher. Do not accept any historical fact unless it complies with the strickest of incidental evidence. This is not our privilige, it is our duty to contribute in such a way so that those who are coming after us can have a clear and unbiased view of history.

Goethean,

Thanks for your remarks. I try my best. I am sorry for the remarks that I put regarding Shiv but you may be able to understand that it has been almost a month since I have been trying to make these points and so far without any success.

Khurram 18:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop spinning. It is clear that you do not want to accept your mistake. --unsigned comment by 203.101.54.195 (talk · contribs)

Do not accept any historical fact unless it complies with the strickest of incidental evidence.

Actually, what needs to happen is this: because this topic is disputed, each opinion must be attributed to the scholars who claim that opinion. In other words, we can say in the article:

According to Dinesh Patel, professor of Sanskrit studies at the University of Rajasthan, on page 123 of his 2005 book Why Rajputs Are Great, Muslims cannot be Rajputs.

...or something like that. Then opposing viewpoints are similarly attributed to the published scholars who claim them. In this way, Wikipedia itself does not make any controversial claims. Instead, it merely reports on those scholar who do make the claims. --goethean ॐ 19:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree and that is why I keep on saying that we should be reporting the views that conform to the incidental evidence of history. --Khurram 14:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact, since the article is so long, we can probably remove the "more detailed history" section since it neglects to cite any sources. —goethean ॐ 14:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

::::Stop spinning. It is clear that you do not want to accept your mistake. --unsigned comment by 203.101.54.195 (talk · contribs) Nice reply. BTW what of my mistakes are we talking about?

Goethean, Now maybe you can understand what I am talking about. BTW thanks for your kind tip. It is really helping me out. --Khurram 20:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I have removed the section of sloppy, unattributed text. Can the "cleanup" tag be removed? — goethean ॐ 14:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

NO, not yet still this article needs alot of formating.Take a look at this version, I feel this version is alot better then the current one?

why couldnt we provide link like this:-

Main article: History of Rajputs after the heading of history is this article?

Should I be bold? الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 15:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please. I'm just here to stop the edit war. — goethean ॐ 15:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. — goethean ॐ 18:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Addition.

I have added the name Janjua as a prominent clan of Rajputs seeing as they were the clan who were known as Hindu Shahi by Ghazni and fought him repeatedly.

Khurram, I'm glad things are getting into more tolerant and neutral environment now, the article is already alot less offensive.Excellent work, keep it up. --Raja 15:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Raja, we must cite sources for all additions to the article. This is the only fair way to police it and keep the unencyclopedic text out. — goethean ॐ 15:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Raja, Yeah it is getting nicer in here (Thanks to Goethean). I have also removed the name "Rana" as a branch of Rajputs since Rana is a synonym of Raja and is used extensively across different Gotras of Rajputs.

As far as Janjuas are concerned, they were and still are the inhabitants of the northern punjab area and naturally were the very first ones to fight any invadors of the Sub-Continent. Almost every history book that talks about the raids of Ghaznavi and others confirms this evidence. Khurram 16:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Khurram, I will again emphasize that all additions to the article, whether controversial or not, must cite a source. Please read Wikipedia's policy on citations. — goethean ॐ 17:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, Sorry, I have added an internal link to the word Rana that already exists on Wikipedia. I will try to provide some additional info as well but can't promise it soon since I am preoccupied a little bit these days. Khurram 18:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Gothean, I have included an internal link to Janjua [1] as a cite reference. What other sources would be required to cite this? --Raja 19:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the article, that looks like a pretty obviously accurate edit. I guess that I overreacted above. I'm really talking about adding content to the article. Thanks for working with me here. — goethean ॐ 19:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Gothean, THANK YOU for working with us,lol! I have also added that Rajputs are also spread throughout India and Pakistan with Punjab holding great numbers also. (I am one of them). The salt ranges of Pakistan were also done in the presence and on the initial enterprise of the Janjuas also [2] [3] [4] this would also confirm the presence and status of the Janjuas during this period. There are also many famous other Rajputs also such as Dhullah Bhatti [5] and many more [6]. I know you've accepted the above, but I've tried to include these sources also for further info should others require it.

Thanks again for all your efforts here Gothean, it isn't forgotten and is very much appreciated. We really needed this. --Raja 20:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Gothean, can the name of Jarral Rajputs also be added as a prominent clan? They have been major players in the Kashmiri region and they are also one of the earliest Muslim converts as well as the Janjua? They are Chandra vanshi sons of Raja Arjuna Pandava and have also been major players in the regions they ruled i.e. Kalanaur and Kashmir[7]. They were eventually ousted by the Dogras. They are a prominent clan of Punjab now and I believe they also deserve mention here too. Is this possible? --Raja 20:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like an administrator has locked the article from being edited to protect it from 203's vandalism. After the article is unlocked, go ahead. You can also put the weblink that you provided above next to the link as a source. I'll help you do it after the page is unlocked. — goethean ॐ 20:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Gothean. I am really dissappointed that '203' has resorted to this instead of promoting information on the subject, it makes our community look stubborn and immature. :(

I also wanted to add that until coming onto this site, I have never read or learnt anywhere that Kshatriya were higher than Brahmin in the Varna? In fact every major authority on Hinduism has stated that Kshatriyas are not at the top of the Varna [8] [9]. Interestingly enough the Rajput Samaj UK (registered Charity since 1975 reg no. 273125) has also established on their info site the same notion that the Kshatriyas were 2nd highest in the traditional Varna [10]. So how can we allow this one sided view of the article writer to over ride a commonly held confirmed belief? Kshatriyas followed the Brahmins and even in my own family history I have seen many confirmations of this also. Even though Rajputs had their own Purohits, they were still undoubtedly Brahmin and also initiated all rituals and ceremonies. This view is also supported by many Hindu Rajputs also, so I believe the article writer is asserting his caste superiority here which is wrong. This is something which I believe should also be corrected on the article once allowed.

Thanks again for your help here Gothean.--Raja 21:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Goethean and Raja,

Excellent work. The article really does look great now. I would like to indicate few more rajput gotras including Jarral, Chib and Dogras who are inhabitants of Kashmir and Jehlum valley, Khar, Naroo and Watto who are inhabitants of Punjab. I know there are many more that I will keep on putting in as I will remember them.

Khurram 14:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Bilateral dispute

Folks, I believe this issue is a bilateral dispute between indians and pakis. So I ask all self-appointed mediators to lay off from this page. Let indians and pakis resolve their disputes on their own. -- unsigned comment by IP address 24.39.114.30

That's a racist comment. Go away. — goethean ॐ 17:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well put Gothean. --Raja 18:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow!!! Now where did that one come from? Khurram | خرم 21:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

'Racist' is a strong term and should not be trivilized by indiscriminate use. In a civilized world its considered proper not to poke one's nose in matters which does not concern one directly or indirectly. I am just telling self-important mediators that it is none of their business. How on earth does that make me a racist?

--24.168.135.112 17:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Very well said 24.168.135.112. It is amazing how clueless people are making themselves mediators. If someone presents some original well researched data you even enjoy the conversation because your own knowledge increases. Feel free to comment more. We need more people like you around here.

-Shivraj Singh

dispute resolution

When the article becomes unprotected, I can add a sentence to the article as follows:

Some see the Rajput varna as including followers of all four major religions of the sub-continent: Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Sikhism. Others dispute the claim that non-Hindus can be Rajputs, seeing the Rajput identity as comprised primarily of participation in Hindu religious rites and the Hindu caste system rather than one of ethnic heritage.

How does that sound? — goethean ॐ 15:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I did a little edit in your remark and would like to say that I can't agree more. It is a nice way to put it.

خرم Khurram 15:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No, your change changes the meaning of the sentence. The claim of 203/Gurkhaboy is that non-Hindus cannot be Rajputs. That is to say, 203 disputes the claim that non-Hindus can be Rajputs. Right? — goethean ॐ 15:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

In the first phrase you are mentioning those who say that Rajputs can be Non-Hindu. In the second argument it should say that the other school of thought says that non Hindus can not be Rajputs. So I think we need a "not" there.

خرم Khurram 18:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

-Shivraj

Gothean

You have been thoroughly exposed as a hindu hating muslim. You have been diligently deleting stuff from hindu rajputs and have not done the same to crap from muslims. Can u explain this duplicity? If your memory needs a kick I can provide you with many instances. Also stop hiding behind pseudonyms and come out with ur real name. I will wager 10 cents that u r a muslim.

Do not act like a child and have the guts to accept criticism. I have had enough of your biased clueless behavior. I can also start deleting the crap that you write from now on and revert your edits .

-Shivraj

Whoa hang on here Shiv, where the hell did you come up with that assumption? There is absolutely no proof of this point anywhere here so why become so abusive? Take a look at Gothean's history here and you will see from his work that he is dedicated to religious tolerance. This new abusive from you is quite concerning...I'm not happy about this at all. --Raja 21:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk facts

Lot of brotherly love between all muslims on this page who for some strange reason want to rewrite rajput history. All of you confer together and write one coherent reply to these 5 questions and answer all of them.

We've been doing so for the past 10 archived pages but you still ask nonsensical questions which have no relevance to what a Rajput is? --Raja 19:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

1 Does any hindu rajput consider Akbar great? Answer is no. Yet in "new history" u mention him great. Provide facts why he should be considered great.?

You obviously didnt like the guy, but we dont necessarily like him much either. Is the Great Akbar (which incidentally Akbar means great) a benchmark to being a Rajput? I'm sure it isn't, he wasn't around the days when the Suryavansh, Yaduvansh, Agnikula or Chandravanshi were coronated :) --Raja 19:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Updated answer 4 Shiv; Akbar was known as great for many reasons. Mainly because of his conquering ability with either the sword or diplomacy. Within a short period of his life, he consolidated a fragile state into a powerful Kingdom of which he was a solid emporer. This hasn't been achieved since. He wasn't a perfect king, but when has India ever seen one? And btw he became a heretic and Muslims lost faith in him and dont necessarily like him for this. His own son waged war against him for this reason amongst others. --Raja 21:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

2 Provide facts that ghori did not commit treachery.?

Again why should we? Who cares? He was a warlord who used tactics to win a war? Khurram's point below re: Sun TZu's art of war is relevant here. Provide facts that Prthviraj didn't persecute innocent Muslim dervishes in Ajmer? In fact the prove is that centuries later even the local Hindus of Rajasthan attend these Dervishes Shrines and recount the terrible afflictions Prthviraj subjected . --Raja 19:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This point HAS NEVER BEEN made that Ghori never committed what you call 'treachery'. He beat and defeated Prithviraj in a decisive battle where this king of great repute sadly lost the respect of his kingdom when he began persecuting them for embracing Islam out of fear he would lose control over them. Get that through your head once and for all. Read my above point and tell me how acknwoledging Ghori makes you more or less a Rajput? Answer this if you feel so much for Shah Ghori. --Raja 21:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

3 Provide evidence that khilji did not commit treachery.

See the above point. :) --Raja 19:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

4 Provide facts to back up your claim that Babur did not commit treachery?

If we're on the point of treachery, then what do you call it when Shivaji the Maratha went an met an unarmed and defenceless Afzal Khan and assasinated him by going in ARMED and ARMOURED? And then to quell any anti sentiment from his loyalists claims that he was attacked first by Afzal Khan with a knife that was NEVER recovered? We can go on forever, but are any of these a benchmark of a Rajput ? No, hence refarin from this troublesome behaviour. --Raja 19:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

5 Why should ghoris's descendants / Iranian Sassanids etc be counted as rajputs?

 Let me restate this question so you understand it.  You have all claimed 
 in this discussion that it is ok for any martial race from India to claim 
  themselves as rajputs.  Provide evidence to support this theory of yours.
  (Remember version control. Do not say you have not claimed this before).

Ghori was not a Sassanid, that's your mistake there. Sassanid descedants were given the title of Rajput by the same Hindu Pundits who crowned a non Rajput Shivaji into a Sisodiya Rajput, even though the overwhelming consensus was opposed to this very fact. If he can be crowned a Rajput, then why can't Sassanids? In fact they call themselves Rajputs only by title i.e. Rajaputra which even YOUR version of the artice clearly states as the meaning of Rajput. No more than that. Their Royal blood dominated Iran for over 600years and regions of India for many centuries too, so their Royalty and their blood characteristics aren't in dispute with the likes of the bias authors you have read from. BTW for your information, they were given these titles by the Pundits WHILST BEING MUSLIMS so your baseline fundamental argument is clearly refuted by higher religious authorities than yourself clearly. --Raja 19:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

My response to my questions is that I claim Akbar was not great because he killed innocent unarmed non fighting civilians. [ Source James Tod: Annals and antiquities of ancient rajasthan]

That doesn't make you more or me less a Rajput I'm afraid. --Raja 19:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Babur committed treachery. [Source: James Tod: Annals and antiquities of ancient Rajasthan] Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan; or the Central and Western Rajput States... (Hardcover) by James Tod, William Crooke (Editor) Book Description Relates the history of the Central and Western Rajput states of India; edited by William Crooke. 3 volumes. classic on early Rajasthan (amazon.com) Product Hardcover Publisher: Trans-Atl (1994) Language: English ISBN: 8170691281

That doesn't make you more or me less a Rajput I'm afraid. --Raja 19:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ghori committed treachery. [Source: Professor Dasharatha Sharma: Early Chauhan Dynasties]

Early Chauhan dynasties: A study of Chauhan political history, Chauhan political institutions, and life in the Chauhan dominions, from 800 to 1316 A.D (Unknown Binding) by Dasharatha Sharma Product Details Publisher: Motilal Banarsidass; 2d rev. ed edition (1975) Language: English ISBN: 0842606181

khilji's treachery at ranthambore. [source : Dr. LS Rathore : The glory of ranthambore] Jodhpur university press, Jodhpur (India) First published in 1990

Also for the record I had asked the wiki admins to lock the article page and not what someone was claiming earlier.

-Shivraj

Then we must be grateful that they locked in it's unbiased form. :) --Raja 19:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Does any hindu rajput consider Akbar great? Answer is no. Yet in "new history" u mention him great. Provide facts why he should be considered great.?

Why don't you go make trouble at the Akbar article? It begins as follows:

Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbár, also known as Akbar the Great (Akbar-e-Azam) (15 October 1542 – 27 October 1605) was the ruler of the Mughal Empire from the time of his accession in 1556 until 1605. He is considered the greatest of the Mughal emperors.

— goethean ॐ 20:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Can u understand english? This is a rajput page. All muslims consider him great.

-Shivraj

Who cares what we think of Akbar, can you substantiate that EVERY Muslim does? Thats a tall claim Shiv, hope you have the sources to prove this ;) --Raja 19:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

How is this relevant to this discussion? Are we discussing Akbar here? BTW who was being called "Maha Bali" and by whom?

خرم Khurram 20:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You and other muslims were constantly reverting material about ghori/babur/khilji/Akbar etc from what I had written. Now you are being asked to justify your claims.

Shivraj

Read my answers above Shiv, there's your answers. Now answer my post below if you can.--Raja 19:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we discuss these issues at some other place since it is not relevant here? As far as your claims of treachery are concerned, ever heard of "Element of surprise"?

خرم Khurram 21:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are they not relevant? We are talking about rajput history on rajput wikipedia and treachery of muslims against rajputs. Why do you and other muslims always want to change the topic of discussion? Confront the truth head on.

Shivraj

Shiv,

First of all, IT IS NOT A RAJPUT WIKIPEDIA.

Second, before calling anything treachery, please read about war and the art of it. Sun TZU's art of war will be helpful read for you as it is admitted to be the classical work and it IS NOT MUSLIM.

خرم Khurram 21:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It is wikipedia discussion page on rajputs. Yet again you are not providing any facts for your claims. Provide evidence for the claims you made when you edited rajput wikipedia article.

-Shivraj

It is wikipedia discussion page on rajputs. This is different than claiming it to be "Rajput Wikipedia". Enough said.

خرم Khurram 21:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone amongst you created the new history page and mentioned akbar the great.

::I know what treachery is and so does James Tod/Dashratha Sharma and LS rathore.

It is clear to me you have no facts. Just air.

- - -Shivraj -

We never called him "Maha Bali" What about those who did? About him being called The Great, history has its own measures. BTW what about Alexandar the Great?

خرم Khurram 21:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Khurram,

  No facts ?  Want to divert the discussion?

-Shivraj

ffs, Shivaraj, what are you, a Rajasthan teenager in an internet cafe? would you mind spelling the English pronoun, you, so you sound less like a moron? Do you realize that Akbar itself means "the Great" and is just a conventional title, much like Alexander the Great who was also just an imperialist asshole? If you would just ask people to let you quote the opinion of Professor Dasharatha Sharma or whoever, that would be fair enough; but you seem to claim the opinion of your authorities as fact. I don't know about 'treachery', what has that got to do with anything, in the first place? And, of course one man's traitor is another man's hero, so Category:Traitors is not something we'll have anything soon within the spirit of NPOV. 83.79.180.249 18:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Stick to the theme of "talking facts".

-Shivraj

Shivraj,

YOU really have lost perspective of what this page is about. I am trying to be as civil as possible with you. You think that just because we are Muslim we agree with other Muslim kings. We dont. We only support the right ones. Our opinions of either Akbar et al have nothing to do with you or this page. In fact I posted questions up earlier (remember VERSION CONTROL) and you point blank refused to answer those? So where is the diversion?....

Me,Khurram and the guys have answered your other pointless questions.

I can post many questions here for you too Shiv, but that wouldn't change your ideology. You plainly just hate us Muslims and there is nothing I can do to stop that. People like me and Khurram scare you because we belong to ancient 'standard bearing' clans and we converted to Islam. OK;

a) If Sikhism was against Muslims then why is Saint Mian Mir so respected and loved by the actual Gurus of Sikhism?

b) Why did Guru Gobind Singh side with Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last MUGHAL emporer of India?

c) Ever heard of Prince Dara Shikoh? He was the brother that Aurangzeb had beheaded, he studied both the Vedas and Islam and was on great terms with Guru Har Rai Ji (a well known fact). In actuality there is a famous episode where Prince Dara Shikoh was ill from an ailment that was cured when Saint Guru Har Rai sent an ayurvedic remedy for. Such was the relations. Now he was a Mughal and he was a great Muslim Prince also. This proves that Islam and Sikhisms great Gurus were actually consistent, as opposed to your biased propoganda view of their opposition. 2 great examples of each faith and look at their affection for one another. You're bias has been annulled do you agree?

d) Why did Guru Gobind Singh ji refer to himself as the Idol Breaker of the idol worshipping Rajas? Isn't that against Hinduism itself? Therefore he wasn't fighting to protect Hinduism from Islam as you stated then was he, when he himself was breaking Hindu Idols himself?

e) Why did he wage war on the Hill Rajputs if he and all Rajputs fought against Islam for Hinduism? Now BY YOUR DEFINITION you state that Rajputs fought ONLY to protect Hinduism. By this definition then did they fight Guru ji to protect Hinduism? Or Guruji fought to protect Hinduism (by your definition of what Sikhs were created for) from these Hindu Idol worshipping Rajputs. Which one was protecting Hinduism Shiv? YOU MUST ANSWER THIS POINT IF YOU ARE TO RETAIN ANY CREDIBILITY ON THIS PAGE.

f) Are you saying that Hinduism and Sikhism are one and the same? I assure you that many Sikh authorities vehemently oppose your views and state you are a Hindutva propogandist.

g) You talk of treachery, isn't that what Shivaji is meant to have commited to an unprotected and unarmed Afzal Khan? and then claim he was attacked by Afzal Khan by a knife that was never found?

h) You talk of glory and the power of Marathas etc. (No offence to any Marathas here) but to reflect what what happened in Panipat where innumerable Marathas outnumbered the army of Abdali by 5 to 1 and yet were defeated openly. Was that the glory you spoke of? Because if it was, then you are very wrong here...these wars were clearly for territory and opportunities that various different leaders took to get a share of a crumbling Mughal empire. Nothing more, nothing less.

Please dont go on about external struggles and paint all Muslims with the same brush, there are 'shades of grey' (the heavy Maratha losses, the very noble Mughals who were even persecuted by their own blood, the cordial and excellent relations between Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism that obviously DID EXIST regardless of what you try to imply here.) In fact many of your points have been answered and proven wrong.

I await your answers, but I am not bothered too much as this can go on for ever and will not achieve anything, you have already proved yourself a bias and unreliable source.

I pity one thing here. That you're insecurity for a faith you know next to nothing about (other than through Hindutva propoganda) is causing you to even harass a page dedicated to our ancestor.

--Raja 13:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

So you want to freely edit wikipedia with your beliefs. This is called POV pushing in wiki lingo.

Shivraj

You have been doing that since day one my friend. BTW you having failed to answer my questions (even though we answered yours)proves the shallowness of your baseless arguments and removes all credibility from your points. You refuse to debate, but argue for the sake of arguing trying to promote a very prejudice ideology which sadly WAS NEVER THE CASE in the history YOU purport. --Raja 11:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Raja your answer to my question was Again why should we? Who cares? Is this an answer? Go back to my questions and justify why your group should be allowed to edit wiki just based on beliefs. I am being very polite and nice here.

I pity one thing here. That you're insecurity for a faith you know next to nothing about (other than through Hindutva propoganda) is causing you to even harass a page dedicated to our ancestors.'

Above assertion from raja is what I have responded to below. Is this a marriage of vandals where muslim side is allowed to stick its posts and when we respond you delete it.

Since you brought issue of religion why is it that the most exalted muslim country in the world, Saudi Arabia, does not allow other religions to build there temples of worship? As I have said before it is your religious leaders and your religion who is afraid to see other religions practiced in there domain even in this modern age. Who are you trying to fool here? This is no madarsa that you can brainwash somebody into beleiving your doctrines.

Your posts were abusive and uncivil, may be that's why they were deleted? --Raja 12:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep the discussion to rajputs and there history. No part of history can be omitted just because it is unpleasant for you and your group.

-Shivraj

Shiv

If you read my answers you'd realise that I question your queries relevance to this page? You can question a hundred times we always answer, yet when we question you, you merely evade. Why? Rajputs ARE NOT and NEVER will be an ethos against Islam and there is no paradox called Muslim Rajput, period.

Answer my questions, which I believe are more relevant to your propoganda here if you really want a debate.

I also abhor your abuse towards Gothean who's just here to stop YOUR edit war from escalating. He hasn't been anti Hindu or Islamic in anyway so why the abuse? Let's be clear about one thing here, if you look at the previous histories Shiv, I haven't deleted anything from your article (except where earlier you were being prejudiced against us by calling us outcastes) and I havent deleted any of your posts on this discussion, please go ahead and verify.

PS I know you wont sleep at night unless I answer some of your questions directly so I have done. Now answer mine if you can. (I am not challenging you here, it is a polite request.) --Raja 21:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Raja, You question the relevance because you want one sided history of rajputs (Funnily enough we're arguing for the balanced side which YOU are opposed to --Raja 12:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)) , written by your ancestors (The only books my ancestors wrote or were written due to them was the Mahabharata, Bhagvad Gita to my father Arjuna, and Rajtirangi about my ancestor Jayapal Shah, so please let me know if we have another book? ;) --Raja 12:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)) , who were on the payroll of the king they wrote about (Prove this, provide your source which King ANY of my ancestors were on the payroll of. Provide the undisputable source if you have the guts? --Raja 12:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)) , to be posted on this website. This will not be allowed. Period. (Ofcourse it wouldn't, but the neutrality YOU ARE OPPOSING will never be side tracked. We wont let it --Raja 12:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

Regarding Goethean scroll up a bit and ask yourself why he deleted my response to your insecurity of faith assertion. He slept over your comment for more then 24 hours and when I responded he woke up.

-Shivraj

Shiv,

You have refused to apologise to GOTHEAN even when requested to provide evidence of his bias against Hindus (of which there was none) and now I have lost all respect for you. --Raja 12:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hindu Rajputs

I have discovered that an article caled Hindu rajputs was created. It is probably a POV fork of this article, and something should be done about this. Nothing links there accet now this talk page. Academic Challenger 17:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

One vfd, coming right up...— goethean ॐ 17:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Goethean

Please look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmcdevit and the heading Rajput. It is the 20th heading.

Hi there. I believe that it was you who protected the Rajput article. In the pursuit of resolution of the dispute, I would like to add some text to the article. Unfortunately, it has not been approved by all parties, but nonetheless, here it is:

Some see the Rajput varna as including followers of all four major religions of the sub-continent: Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Sikhism. Others dispute the claim that non-Hindus can be Rajputs, seeing the Rajput identity as comprised primarily of participation in Hindu religious rites and the Hindu caste system rather than one of ethnic heritage.

This would replace the last sentence of the "Definition" section. Unfortunately, at this point, we don't have citations to back up the attributions. Thanks! — goethean ॐ 18:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

-Shivraj

Please note that in the quoted passage, "attributions" is plural.

How's the wikistalking going? — goethean ॐ 21:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi all, I guess I'll respond here. Goethean, I'm sure you meant well, but please take a look at Wikipeda:Protection policy ("admins should not edit the page while it is protected"). There is very good reason for that, too.

Shivraj, I wonder if you've considered creating an account (just takes a few seconds, no personal information given). That would make it much easier for folks to communicate with you, on your talk page just as you've contacted me on mine.

As far as I've seen there's been little progress here. I'd recommend you request mediation. Also, I've informally asked Zora to see if she can offer anything, but, you know, people are busy (like me), so be nice to us. :) This talk page has a severe lack of civility, and you guys need to clean it up. We're all here to make an encyclopedia, so don't treat it like some chatroom where you can insult each other. Dmcdevit·t 00:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

DmcDevit: I have created the article from a multitude of books which have been written by eminent historians of yesteryears and modern times. Gothean himself and his friends have been reverting the edits WITHOUT providing a single piece of documented evidence to support there work. And he now admits that he has no citations to prove his and his buddies beliefs. I have cut and pasted what he wrote on your talk page above. Some of the authors I referenced are:

James Tod: Annals and antiquities of ancient Rajasthan

Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan; or the Central and Western Rajput States... (Hardcover) by James Tod, William Crooke (Editor) Book Description Relates the history of the Central and Western Rajput states of India; edited by William Crooke. 3 volumes. classic on early Rajasthan (amazon.com) Product Hardcover Publisher: Trans-Atl (1994) Language: English ISBN: 8170691281

Prof Dashratha Sharma: Early Chauhan dynasties: A study of Chauhan political history, Chauhan political institutions, and life in the Chauhan dominions, from 800 to 1316 A.D

Product Details Publisher: Motilal Banarsidass; 2d rev. ed edition (1975) Language: English ISBN: 0842606181

Dr. LS Rathore : The glory of ranthambore

Jodhpur university press, Jodhpur (India) First published in 1990

Richard D. Saran and Norman P. Ziegler: Mertiyo Rathors Of Merto, Rajasthan: Select Translations Bearing On The History Of A Rajput Family, 1462-1660

Select Translations Bearing on the History of a Rajput Family, 1462-1660 Translator Saran, Richard D. Annotations by Saran, Richard D. Hardcover Edition: Series#:51; Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia (Hardcover) 772 pages Publisher: University of Michigan Press ISBN / EAN: 0891480854

Shivraj Singh 01:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Shivraj, the first source is a primary source, from the early 19th century, and should be used with extreme caution. You have to correct for the author's prejudices and misconceptions (as you always do, but it's easier to see that in the past). The next two sources I don't know -- they could be reliable, or they could be Hindutva propaganda fantasies. The presses are not prestigious. The last source would be considered good, but its scope is apparently rather narrow. A search on my Questia account produces the following books, which look interesting and relevant:

Kin, Clan, Raja, and Rule: Statehinterland Relations in Preindustrial India, by Richard G. Fox; University of California Press, 1971

Beyond Hindu and Muslim: Multiple Identity in Narratives from Village India, by Peter Gottschalk, Oxford University Press, 2000.

Identity, Gender, and Poverty: New Perspectives on Caste and Tribe in Rajasthan, by Maya Unnithan-Kumar; Berghahn Books, 1997

And there are doubtless many others that an academic would read before writing on the issue. You are apparently working with very few books and a pronounced anti-Muslim agenda. All the other editors are begging you to see matters in shades of grey, not in black-and-white, as good Hindu Rajputs versus evil invading Muslims. Please, listen to them. Zora 02:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora, Have you heard of any criticism of James Tod's work? Just for the record James Tod referenced a whole bunch of written material on rajput history that came his way when he was researching rajput history in rajasthan. To save this valuable material he had it shipped to Royal Asiatic society in England. Why is Jodhpur university press not prestigious? Is it because you have never heard of it or is it because you have read books from this press which have been substandard? If it is the first I would not make a judgement without atleast having read the books published by this press.

Unfortunately none of the books you mention are relevant.

I have created the Hindu_rajputs page by referencing 61 books and they are mentioned in the reference section of that page. I do not think this is a small set of books.

Be precise in pointing out my anti muslim agenda. Each war that I have written about is from these books. What material is taken from what book is also mentioned in the reference section of Hindu_rajputs page.

Why is there no anti hindu rajput bias in muslims and Goethean on this page when they refuse to cite any evidence for reverting my edits?

--Shivraj Singh 17:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Zora,

In the same light, if one were to look at history, with the statement of "pronounced anti-Muslim agenda" then the enitire History of the Jewish people during the holocaust of Worl war 2 can be viewed as a "Pronounced Anti-german, anti-european, anti-christian agenda". To deny what has happened will only further divide and embitter communities.

In this discussion, Shivraj Singh is citing references and making attempts for individuals on this site to see the reality of the situation and the claims being made without foundation. Shivraj is not working with very few books, since a study in any ASouth Asian Studies department will provide you with a huge list of books that narrate the atrocities committed in the subcontinent by the Islamic invasion. Its not about being anti-Islamic, its just about what happened as recorded by Islamic historians who happened to be quite amazing in their prcise accounts of what happened and how they crushed and destroyed the inhabitants of India.

Irfan Husain, a Muslim and a freelance columnist from Pakistan has observed:

”While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan.

The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after they were buried.

Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster. Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful.

These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage. When these warriors settled in India, they ruled as absolute despots over a cowed Hindu populace. For generations, their descendants took their martial superiority over their subjects for granted. "... And a substantial number of Pakistani Muslims are secretly convinced that they are inherently superior to the Hindus. One irony, of course, is that contrary to their wishful thinking, the vast majority of Muslims in the subcontinent have more Hindu blood in their veins than there is Arab, Afghan, Turkish or Persian blood. Many of the invaders took Hindu wives and concubines."

Reference: Demons from the past - By Ifran Husain - dailytimes.com.pk

Thus from here you can see that this is not about being Anti-Islamic, however denying what has happened, or simply denying th holocaust of the subcontinent will not win people's minds in favour of Islam, instead it will further create an feeling of animosity since in this discussion alone their has been a lot of denial of the truth.

Furthermore, Rajput is a strata of the hierarchial system of the Hindus, and for a Muslim to claim to be part of the Hindu Hierarchy clearly violates the beliefs and tenents of Islam, however here we find the convinience of claiming what one wishes to from a Pagan/Kafur faith and yet claiming to be a Muslim, there is an oxymoron.

VS Naipaul, we all know is a Noble Laureate and even he can see what Shivraj Singh is trying to state:

Sir Vidiadhar S. Naipaul (1932 - ) Nobel laureate, He is the author of several books including Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples, Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey, and India: A Wounded Civilization. He has said: "India was wrecked and looted, not once but repeatedly by invaders with strong religious ideas, with a hatred of the religion of the people they were conquering. People read these accounts but they do not imaginatively understand the effects of conquest by an iconoclastic religion."

"India became the great land for Muslim adventurers and the peasantry bore this on their back, they were enslaved quite literally. It just went on like this from the 11th century onwards."

Vidiadhar Naipaul summed up the situation well. He said, "In art and history books, people write of the Muslims "arriving" in India as though they came on a tourist bus and went away again. The Muslim view of their conquest is a truer one. They speak of the triumph of faith, the destruction of idols and temples, the loot, the casting away of locals as slaves." Reference: Economic Times - http://www.economictimes.com/today/30poli04.htm

And even Islamic texts state what happened:

The temple of Somnath, which is not very far from Dwaraka, is dedicated to Lord Siva as Nagnath or Nageshwar Mahadev, and enshrines one of the twelve ‘Jyotirlingas’ which according to the Puranas manifested themselves as columns of light in different parts of the country. The magnificent temple that stands there now is a replica of the original temple. The 13th century Arab source refers to the glories of the temple thus: "Somnath - a celebrated city of India situated on the shore of the sea is washed by its waves. Among the wonders of that place was the temple in which was placed the idol called Somnat. This idol was in the middle of the temple, without anything to support it from below or to suspend it from above. It was held in the highest honour among the Hindus, and whoever beheld it floating in the air was struck with amazement..."

Reference: Sultan Alau’d-Din Khalji (1296-1316), in Tarikh-I-Firuz Shahi

And another article for you by another muslim Rizwan Salim:

" It is clear that India at the time when Muslim invaders turned towards it (8 to 11th century) was the earth's richest region for its wealth in precious and semi-precious stones, gold and silver, religion and culture, and its fine arts and letters. Tenth century Hindustan was also too far advanced than its contemporaries in the East and the West for its achievements in the realms of speculative philosophy and scientific theorizing, mathematics and knowledge of nature's workings. Hindus of the early medieval period were unquestionably superior in more things than the Chinese, the Persians (including the Sassanians), the Romans and the Byzantines of the immediate proceeding centuries. The followers of Siva and Vishnu on this subcontinent had created for themselves a society more mentally evolved-joyous and prosperous too-than had been realized by the Jews, Christians, and Muslim monotheists of the time. Medieval India, until the Islamic invaders destroyed it, was history's most richly imaginative culture and one of the five most advanced civilizations of all times.

Look at the Hindu art that Muslim iconoclasts severely damaged or destroyed. Ancient Hindu sculpture is vigorous and sensual in the highest degree-more fascinating than human figural art created anywhere else on earth. (Only statues created by classical Greek artists are in the same class as Hindu temple sculpture). Ancient Hindu temple architecture is the most awe-inspiring, ornate and spell-binding architectural style found anywhere in the world. (The Gothic art of cathedrals in France is the only other religious architecture that is comparable with the intricate architecture of Hindu temples). No artist of any historical civilization have ever revealed the same genius as ancient Hindustan's artists and artisans.

Their minds filled with venom against the idol-worshippers of Hindustan, the Muslims destroyed a large number of ancient Hindu temples. This is a historical fact, mentioned by Muslim chroniclers and others of the time. A number of temples were merely damaged and remained standing. But a large number - not hundreds but many thousands - of the ancient temples were broken into shreds of cracked stone. In the ancient cities of Varanasi and Mathura, Ujjain and Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi and Dwarka, not one temple survives whole and intact from the ancient times.

It is easy to conclude that virtually every Hindu temple built in the ancient times is a perfect work of art. The evidence of the ferocity with which the Muslim invaders must have struck at the sculptures of gods and goddesses, demons and apsaras, kings and queens, dancers and musicians is frightful. At so many ancient temples of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, for example, shattered portions of stone images still lie scattered in the temple courtyards. Considering the fury used on the idols and sculptures, the stone-breaking axe must have been applied to thousands upon thousands of images of hypnotic beauty.

Giving proof of the resentment that men belonging to an inferior civilization feel upon encountering a superior civilization of individuals with a more refined culture, Islamic invaders from Arabia and western Asia broke and burned everything beautiful they came across in Hindustan. So morally degenerate were the Muslim Sultans that, rather than attract Hindu "infidels" to Islam through force of personal example and exhortation, they just built a number of mosques at the sites of torn down temples-and foolishly pretended they had triumphed over the minds and culture of the Hindus. "

" I have seen stones and columns of Hindu temples incorporated into the architecture of several mosques, including the Jama Masjid and Ahmed Shah Masjid in Ahmedabad; the mosque in the Uparkot fort of Junagadh (Gujarat) and in Vidisha (near Bhopal); the Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra right next to the famous dargah in Ajmer-and the currently controversial Bhojshala "mosque" in Dhar (near Indore).

Hindu culture was at its imaginative best and vigorously creative when the severely-allergic-to-images Muslims entered Hindustan. Islamic invaders did not just destroy countless temples and constructions but also suppressed cultural and religious practices; damaged the pristine vigor of Hindu religion, prevented the intensification of Hindu culture, debilitating it permanently, stopped the development of Hindu arts ended the creative impulse in all realms of thought and action, damaged the people's cultural pride, disrupted the transmission of values and wisdom, cultural practices and tradition from one generation to the next; destroyed the proper historical evolution of Hindu kingdoms and society, affected severely the acquisition of knowledge, research and reflection and violated the moral basis of Hindu society. The Hindus suffered immense psychic damage. The Muslims also plundered the wealth of the Hindu kingdoms, impoverished the Hindu populace, and destroyed the prosperity of Hindustan."

" Gaze in wonder at the Kailas Mandir in the Ellora caves and remember that it is carved out of a solid stone hill, an effort that (inscriptions say) took nearly 200 years. This is art as devotion. The temple built by the Rashtrakuta kings (who also built the colossal sculpture in the Elenhanta caves off Mumbai harbour) gives proof of the ancient Hindus' religious fervor.

The descendants of those who built the magnificent temples of Bhojpur and Thanjavur, Konark and Kailas, invented mathematics and brain surgery, created mindbody disciplines (yoga) of astonishing power, and built mighty empires would almost certainly have attained technological superiority over Europe.

It is not just for "political reasons" that Hindus want to build grand temples at the sites of the (wrecked) Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, and the Mathura idgah. The efforts of religion-intoxicated and politically active Hindus to rebuild the Ram Mandir, the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir, and the Krishna Mandir are just three episodes m a one-thousand year long Hindu struggle to reclaim their culture and religion from alien invaders.

The demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on 6 December 1992 was just one episode in the millennial struggle of the Hindus to repossess their religion-centered culture and nation. Meanwhile, hundreds of ancient Hindu temples forsaken all over Hindustan await the reawakening of Hindu cultural pride to be repaired or rebuilt and restored to their original, ancient glory.

Reference: What the invaders really did - By Rizwan Salim - hindustantimes.com - December 28, 1997

Thus it is not about anti-Islam, not at all, many muslims know what has happened and they feel bad, thus it brings about a feeling of forgiveness and a chance for understanding, however, it seems, that here it is a complete Anti-Hindu situation with an attempt to subvert and distort the truth. I have yet to see one of my muslim colleagues claim I was anti-Islamic simly because I spoke about the truth and historucal fact.

I hope I have been of some assistance.

Dr. Chauhan

Gorkhali 09:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

But what has this got to do with Rajputs?

Gurkhaboy, I'm not saying that the Islamic conquest of Northern India was a "good thing". I think it was a tragedy. So are all wars. But it's just one episode in the history of the Rajputs, yes? The article is about the Rajputs -- who are they? -- and not about Islamic conquests. You're just using a peripheral topic as a springboard from which to launch a diatribe against Muslims. Please, keep the communal hatred OUT of Wikipedia.

I should perhaps add that I'm not a Muslim; I'm a Buddhist, which makes me "Hindu" by some Hindutva definitions and a kafir by Muslim ones. Just to forestall possible accusations of religious bias. Zora 09:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Zora,

Without understanding our history, one cannot understand what it means to be a Rajput. And about communal hatred, how can you bring that up with me when I have never been communal, I only wish I could show you.

However, back to this basic point, Rajput, it is a stratification in the Hindu Varna System, Islam is a faith which teaches no caste and also does not recognise Hinduism, hindu social stratifications etc etc.

Why can you not see what I am trying to convey? It is simply incredible that all my Muslim colleagues (and yes they are educated, we are all medical doctors in North America) agree that the Hindu caste system and Jatis have no place in Islam and for someone to claim a Hindu hierarchial status is no a Muslim. It is so simple.

And obviously, you didn't bother to read the articles I put up otherwise you wouldn't have simply jumped on the "Keep Communal Hatred out of Wiki...".

Anyways, I have to go work on the Tagore conference that will be hosted next month with the University. So If I am not able to respond promptly please understand.

Dr. Chauhan Gorkhali 10:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Gurkhaboy, you've just stated YOUR understanding of what it means to be a Rajput. This is your personal ideology. However, it is not clear to me how far it is shared by ALL Rajputs, contemporary and past. What about the Rajputs who supported Akhbar? What about his Rajput wife? It could be argued that being Rajput is a matter of lineage, not of religion. Furthermore, being Rajput could be problematic in many cases. Who decides who is Rajput and who isn't? According to one book I'm reading, the Girasia claim to be Rajputs; many other Rajputs don't accept them as such and say that they are tribals.

Identity isn't as simple as you think it is. Zora 12:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora. Being a rajput is very simple thing. You have to have purity of blood both on your father's side and mother's side. What this means is that even the son of a rajput king whose mother was a hindu but not a rajput could never ascend the throne because he was not considered a rajput. e.g Banbeer (Pannd Dhai story), Chacha/Mahpa who got Rana Mokal assasinated etc. Even today if you ever happen to visit a rajput village ask a village elder how they decide to marry there grand children. The answer is what I have written here. Any "khot" i.e children of a rajput father and a non rajput mother have alsmost zero chance of getting married to a rajput in rural India.

It is very presitgious to call oneself a rajput. Indeed it is true that for many races rajputs were progenitors but with intermingling of "other blood" they have lost there rajput status. This is why it is almost impossible to stop anyone from calling themselves whatever they feel like. But the litmus test is that do other rajputs consider them as one of there own or not.

You have not read Hindu_rajputs page. Please read it and if you still have questions about Akbar's wife and rajputs who supported him I will be happy to answer them.

Read the Hindu_rajputs page at this website and do browse the References section also.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Rajput

--Shivraj Singh 18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zora,

I hope we can make some progress here.

Firstly, I must thank you for focussing on the same point (from an objective angle) that what has any of this got to do with being a Rajput. Secondly, as you have seen, this is being hi jacked into an argument of Islam vs. Rajputs. By that term I am a living paradox to some of the members here. I have repeatedly stressed that Islam forbade the acts that some of the invaders partook in and neither me or my ancestors were a party to it just because we are now also Muslims. However, considering that this is obvious (i.e. I am not a Ghaznavid but a Rajput) they have decided that we are just as guilty by adopting Islam. I am very dubious to the fact that the above Dr Chauhan does in fact have 'Muslim' friends, because I have spoken and can give details of Hindu Pundits I have met who also state that; 'Tribal identity (i.e. your family name) cant be eroded or forgotten with change of faith. Rajput is Raja-putra, a status and nothing more' as per the first line of the article. So where does it leave scope for others to dispute this when a religious authority has spoken. There's even been instances of Kshatriyas becoming Brahmins and vice versa (i.e. Mohyal, a warrior Brahmin caste). There has been a lot of mud slinging here, especially on our faith and yet we haven't done the same to Hinduism. Dr Chauhan is wrong, Islam did recognise Hinduism i.e. people of the scriptures, hence many emminent Saints even drew these similarities and hence conversions occurred. In fact even Mogul emporer Shah Jahan's son Dara Shikoh was a perfect example of such cohesion and acceptance. But the writer and his associates here are totally narrow minded to these facts i.e. shades of grey.

To even show you a basic contradictory point here made by them; However, back to this basic point, Rajput, it is a stratification in the Hindu Varna System, Islam is a faith which teaches no caste and also does not recognise Hinduism, hindu social stratifications etc etc. No, Kshatriya is. Rajputs as a word is mentioned no where in any religious texts regarding the Varna. In fact many Rajputs today including the good Dr Chauhan occupy Shudra positions such as physicians, Dr.s, office workers, farmers, cleaners, sweepers, carpenters and etc etc this would clearly show they no longer hold Royal offices as protectors of the realm. So they cannot allege Kshatriya status in the true sense of the Holy text anymore. But they can still claim Roayl descendancy, i.e. Rajputra. This is clear proof of Rajput identity being distinct from Kshatriya status which they are obviously trying to marry into one. It is therefore lineage and nothing more. We dont assume the Varna position of Kshatriya as they think, but that of a Mujahid (an Islamic concept of Holy warrior, who's responsibilities are very similar to Kshatriya, but regardless of Royal blood or High office or not.) Islam doesn't forbid us to remember our lineage, in fact the opposite. But it does forbid our previous rituals etc. and we have accordingly left them. But my ancestors contributions to state and society, Hinduism and Vedant principles are too great for me to neglect at the behest of an extremist. But we make a distinction between pride in lineage and romanticising something to the point that we become extremists and nothing is grey any longer. Muslim Rajputs were referred to as such by them for centuries so why the hype now? Regarding the point about Muslim historians 'brilliantly' recording their history, but then the same members discard their work calling them biased by not recording all of the incidents.(obviously areas where they allege they won, or pursued the same warlords i.e. shows them in a more dominant light.) I have argued many such points before but I'm glad now there is an objective ear to listen to them. (you've pretty much realised whats been going on) Goodluck and I hope we get some success here,lol!--Raja 12:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks God I survived "Wilma" and it is glad to see that the discussion is still almost there where I left it. One improvement that I see here is the contribution of Zora. Welcome Zora and let's hope that you would be able to add to the efforts of Goethean. I would just like to point one thing here. The Varna caste system divides people into four major categories. Rajputs were included in the second one as "Khastraiyas". Remember that the Rajputs were not inherently Khashtariyas, they were given the title of Khashtariyas (It was pointed somewhere in this same talk). Thus being a Rajput and being a Khastriya are two different things. By leaving the religion, one is no more a Khashtariya since it is a strictly religious distribution, but one remains a Rajput since it is transferred by blood.

Dr. Chauhan,

I had a very good Hindu Rajput friend back home in Pakistan and conicidentally he was a Chauhan too. He never disputed mine being a Rajput. As far as believing in Verna system is concerned, I think I have pointed out the difference above. Islam has no place for being Brahmin, Khashtaiya, Vaisha and Shudar but it has place for one being Rajput, Araeen, Quraish and others. One point that however is confusing me is that you mentioned somewhere that you did research on Rajputs as your Graduate research and now you are saying that you are a medical doctor. How do these two overlap?

خرم Khurram 14:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora cut and paste from hindu rajput page

Rajputana is not my area of expertise, but I know how to find info. I searched my Questia account for recent books on Rajputs and came up with three, with are listed on the talk page for Rajput. There were many more. Shivraj is using four books, one of which is an old primary source, two of which are local Indian productions (and possibly Hindutva-slanted), and one reputable academic text of limited scope. I know enough about India, and communal violence in India, to know that Shivraj is pushing an extreme Hindu POV. What I've skimmed of the books I found on Questia suggests that Goethean and the other editors are correct in seeing the question in shades of grey, rather than Shivraj's simplistic black-and-white narrative. Identity is not a simple matter, and especially so in India. Please don't let this POV fork stand. Zora 07:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora. Richard Saran is from the west so his work is reputable and these other professors are "possibly hindutva slanted"? Have you read these books to arrive at this conclusion or is it a prejudice? I have personally communicated with Richard Saran a few times and he has sent me good amount of material from his personal collection which helped me trace my genealogy back to Rao Sheoji of Marwar. Let us see how Richard did his research (He told me this when I spoke to him). He went to India and translated marwari/dingal manuscripts of rathore kings in a particular time window. Then he got the genealogies of various rajput clans from Manohar Singh Ranawat of Sitamau, who is a direct descendant of Maharana Pratap, and is also a protege of Raghubir Singh the ruler of Sitamau. Raghubir Singh is an eminent historian and wrote the life of Durgadas Rathore which is present in my bibliography. It took Richard and Norman couple of decades to bring there work out i.e painstaking research over a very long period of time.

Prof. Dashratha Sharma and Dr LS Rathore researched works like HammirMahaKavya, Prithiviraj Vijaya, PrithvirajRaso and various stone inscriptions in rajasthan and numismatic evidence and after many dedicated years of research published there respective works. To trivialize them as "hindutva.." is bad scholarship.

I have not mentioned just four books. Please see the Reference section of this page.

You claim you know India and communal violence there. Then you use sweeping generalizations of shades of grey and black and white. I want you to be very precise and point out what is anti muslim or hindutva POV in my post on this page.

What is astonishing on this wiki is I have provided a complete bibliography from which I formed this article and yet I am the one who is being accused of pushing POV, being a hindutva wadi and anti muslim. When these muslims reverted my edits and I asked them for supporting citations they refuse to provide even a single piece of documented evidence and yet they are not considered POV pushing, or just clueless about rajput history. I asked them 5 precise questions on the rajput talk page and I asked them to provide citations so that we can engage in a logical discussion but I received a blank and nobody is bothered here ? What am I missing? -- Shivraj Singh 18:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the astonishing thing is that the 5 questions you mentioned had nothing to do with what a Rajput truly is. And I assure you, you weren't blanked...My questions on the other hand though, were blanked.

Zora how do you see this dispute moving forward? How can we resolve this issue in a proper way to reach a settlement? I dont see Shiv or his associates bias letting up to allow a 'peaceful' resolution.--Raja 18:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

yet I am the one who is being accused of pushing POV, being a hindutva wadi and anti muslim. When these muslims reverted my edits I think no one needs to give more evidance.

خرم Khurram 18:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

We clearly can't get a consensus position on what defines Rajputness, so perhaps we need to step back and outline the various positions. I gather that there's the, um, Hindutva position stressing the identity of the Rajputs as a Hindu caste and the long history of Rajput warring with Muslim rulers. Then there's the lineage position -- lineage is not lost whatever your faith or occupation. Discuss how lineage is recorded and established, marriage rules, etc. Then I'd suppose there'd be something like an outside position, which would point to the diverse ethnic origins of many local rulers, who, following the demise of the Gupta dynasty, were accepted as Kshatriyas and given mythical genealogies. I'm wondering just how pervious, or impervious, the Rajput-non-Rajput boundaries were in the past, and how many successful warriors established their Rajputness at the edge of a sword.

As outsider, I'd also like to see a section on myths re Rajputs and current stereotypes. Some of the web pages I recently skimmed were actually illustrated with comic book narrations of highly-dramatic Rajput stories. I've also seen a few Bollywood movies featuring Rajputs. Weren't the two families in Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak supposed to be Rajputs? Thereby establishing their "honor" and propensity to feud? And then there was that Dharmendra/Rajesh Khanna movie Rajput.

That's at least four sections. Would that work? Zora 20:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The four sections sound great to me. In fact may actually give a better idea of the Rajput ideal too to the outsider. With regards to the Rajputness point of the boundaries etc. then the famed Kachwaha dynasty (amongst others) who gave their daughter's hand (Jodha Bhai) to Akbar illustrates that rules can't have been as rigid as some would have us believe. The Kachwaha's have since retained their Royal titles and weren't outcasted for handing to a Muslim were they? No matter how many tried... I think at this point it's best to outline our (Muslim Rajputs) position to you Zora. We dont claim to be Kshatriyas at all. We dont claim to be Hindus in any sense of the word. But we were/are/always will be descendants of old Vedic Royals. Thats a fact we celebrate and have pride in. Thats all. We dont want the approval of Hindutva, we havent needed it in over 800yrs. If today there was a united general religious consensus from all MAINSTREAM Hindus that Rajput no longer means 'Raja Putra' (translated= Royals son) then we will discard the title immediately. But by it's own literal translation it means lineage so we only adopt it as such. You are right about the propensity to feud (just look at this discussion,lol) but even Timur noted in his Zafarnama how he was aware of Indias never ending civil wars between the different kingdoms. So even then Rajputs were feuding with one another, WAY BEFORE the Mogul conquests. If it's not against Muslims, then it's against eachother. THe Chalukyas razed temples of rival Rajput clans in a show of might, but then these aspects are brushed under the carpet and stated that ALL Rajputs were Hinduism saviours and protectors, which this proves couldn't have been the case. Good ideas Zora. I agree with your perspective here.--Raja 21:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Where's The Article

It would be great if you could all cooperate and write an article. I think it is not so hard; just let there be sections on each view point and the differing authors should not edit each others work but focus on their own. It is embarrassing to watch adults fritter away an opportunity to write useful history when both sides of the story are worth looking at and represent important historical points of view. I think at this late date it is also reasonable to have both Hindu and Muslim Rajput articles if that would solve the contention. Kindly try to work together in some meaningful way so that others can profit from the Wikipedia on this subject. Look at it as helping other people to understand (which most assuredly they do not). Sevadar 21:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Sevadar

I agree with this point. I'm sure other Non Hindu Rajputs will also agree this too. I'm up for helping wherever required.--86.2.105.229 13:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable until both versions stick to proven facts and refrain from promoting religious rhetoric and agendas. The purpose of the article writing should be to present the others with an unbiased view of history not a distorted one and this is what this debate is all about so far.

خرم Khurram 13:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora your accusations regarding POV's, anti muslim bias, hindutva agenda, etc

Zora perhaps you missed these posts yesterday but I need to make sure that you are really an impartial moderator. Accusations of pushing POV / hindutva agenda and anti muslim bias are very serious and I need to see your answers please.

Zora, Have you heard of any criticism of James Tod's work? Just for the record James Tod referenced a whole bunch of written material on rajput history that came his way when he was researching rajput history in rajasthan. To save this valuable material he had it shipped to Royal Asiatic society in England. Why is Jodhpur university press not prestigious? Is it because you have never heard of it or is it because you have read books from this press which have been substandard? If it is the first I would not make a judgement without atleast having read the books published by this press.

Unfortunately none of the books you mention are relevant.

I have created the Hindu_rajputs page by referencing 61 books and they are mentioned in the reference section of that page. I do not think this is a small set of books.

Be precise in pointing out my anti muslim agenda. Each war that I have written about is from these books. What material is taken from what book is also mentioned in the reference section of Hindu_rajputs page.

Browse the Hindu_rapjuts page at:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Rajput

Why is there no anti hindu rajput bias in muslims and Goethean on this page when they refuse to cite any evidence for reverting my edits?

--Shivraj Singh 17:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora. Being a rajput is very simple thing. You have to have purity of blood both on your father's side and mother's side. What this means is that even the son of a rajput king whose mother was a hindu but not a rajput could never ascend the throne because he was not considered a rajput. e.g Banbeer (Panna Dhai story), Chacha/Mahpa who got Rana Mokal assasinated etc. Even today if you ever happen to visit a rajput village ask a village elder how they decide to marry there grand children. The answer is what I have written here. Any "khot" i.e children of a rajput father and a non rajput mother have alsmost zero chance of getting married to a rajput in rural India.

It is very presitgious to call oneself a rajput. Indeed it is true that for many races rajputs were progenitors but with intermingling of "other blood" they have lost there rajput status. This is why it is almost impossible to stop anyone from calling themselves whatever they feel like. But the litmus test is that do other rajputs consider them as one of there own or not.

You have not read Hindu_rajputs page. Please read it and if you still have questions about Akbar's wife and rajputs who supported him I will be happy to answer them.

Read the Hindu_rajputs page at this website and do browse the References section also.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Rajput

--Shivraj Singh 18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora. Richard Saran is from the west so his work is reputable and these other professors are "possibly hindutva slanted"? Have you read these books to arrive at this conclusion or is it a prejudice? I have personally communicated with Richard Saran a few times and he has sent me good amount of material from his personal collection which helped me trace my genealogy back to Rao Sheoji of Marwar. Let us see how Richard did his research (He told me this when I spoke to him). He went to India and translated marwari/dingal manuscripts of rathore kings in a particular time window. Then he got the genealogies of various rajput clans from Manohar Singh Ranawat of Sitamau, who is a direct descendant of Maharana Pratap, and is also a protege of Raghubir Singh the ruler of Sitamau. Raghubir Singh is an eminent historian and wrote the life of Durgadas Rathore which is present in my bibliography. It took Richard and Norman couple of decades to bring there work out i.e painstaking research over a very long period of time.

Prof. Dashratha Sharma and Dr LS Rathore researched works like HammirMahaKavya, Prithiviraj Vijaya, PrithvirajRaso and various stone inscriptions in rajasthan and numismatic evidence and after many dedicated years of research published there respective works. To trivialize them as "hindutva.." is bad scholarship.

I have not mentioned just four books. Please see the Reference section of this page.

You claim you know India and communal violence there. Then you use sweeping generalizations of shades of grey and black and white. I want you to be very precise and point out what is anti muslim or hindutva POV in my post on this page.

What is astonishing on this wiki is I have provided a complete bibliography from which I formed this article and yet I am the one who is being accused of pushing POV, being a hindutva wadi and anti muslim. When these muslims reverted my edits and I asked them for supporting citations they refuse to provide even a single piece of documented evidence and yet they are not considered POV pushing, or just clueless about rajput history. I asked them 5 precise questions on the rajput talk page and I asked them to provide citations so that we can engage in a logical discussion but I received a blank and nobody is bothered here ? What am I missing? -- Shivraj Singh 18:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Shivraj Singh 16:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

possible compromise language?

Shivraj, how does this language sound?

Although the vast majority of Rajputs have been strongly Hindu, there have been a few tribes throughout the past few centuries, including some Bhatti Rajputs, that have converted to Islam and yet still consider themselves Rajputs. Hindu Rajputs generally dispute this claim.

— goethean ॐ 16:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

As this article has been protected for ten days now--an unhealthily long period on a wiki--I'm unprotecting. There does seem to be a certain amount of reasonably polite discussion on this talk page, which I hope will translate into reasonably polite editing. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Goethean,

I think we should also include the Sikh and Christian Rajputs as well since they are not Hindus either.

خرم Khurram 19:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Babysteps. — goethean ॐ 19:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I for one hope we can finally come to an agreement and move forward with this. This is a good move, Thank you. Gothean I've added a little to your work. How does this sound guys? (Shiv, Dr Chauhan this also includes yourselves)

Although the vast majority of Rajputs have been strongly Hindu, there have been a few tribes throughout the past few centuries, including e.g. some Bhatti, Chauhan, Janjua and Rathore Rajputs, that have converted to Islam, Sikhism and Christianity and yet still consider themselves Rajputs arguing that it is a matter of lineage and not faith. Hindu Rajputs generally dispute this claim.

It hits the point directly from both sides without going into inflammatory or biased points I think. Plus I've broadened some names of other well known non Hindu tribes which have also current Hindu counterparts too. Please do comment? --Raja 20:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

tom's edit

Tom, regarding this, I had moved that information to History of Rajputs. — goethean ॐ 16:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I know that, and I appreciate your efforts to combat zealotry, incivility, and bad writing on this page. However I think that previous versions of the article contained a lot more useful information than the current one, yet weren't over-long, and that splitting the page in two has diminished the amount of useful information here for readers. No one really argued that the history section I restored was factually incorrect or biased, or irrelevant to the topic, and removing it from the article hasn't protected the page from continued abuse by semi-literate chauvinists. The History of Rajputs article is subject to the same abuse, so I am not sure that anything has been gained by omitting the history section from this page. Tom Radulovich 20:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Shiv in Action Again

Shiv has editted the page again in his "fashion". Can someone take the "Anti-Muslim" bias out of him since I am tired of it?

خرم Khurram 14:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Goethean.

خرم Khurram 16:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Jo dridh rakhe dharm ko, tihi rakhe kartar

Shiv, Your righteous stand is very much appreciated by all Hindus who are closely following this war of attrition on the Internet. I am really touched by the fact that at least one Hindu is fighting a lone battle against the Muslim vandals in wikipedia doamin. Way to go brother. keep it up. All the Hindus looking up to you.

Best Wishes Sisodia

Sisodia,

There are some interesting things I learned here. Every muslim who won a war in India, his descendants , according to muslims on this wikipedia are rajputs e.g Ghori, Khilji's followers etc. No one on wikipedia, including the charade of admins questions such assertions. I wonder why?

And they are "hiding behind the veil" again. When u ask them questions they just dodge. Perhaps it is in there genes. When Amar Singh Rathore attacked Shah Jahan many who came to defend ShahJahan were cut to pieces. ShahJahan ran into the "janana" i.e the women's quarter to save himself. Amar Singh followed him but when ShahJahan's wife pleaded for his life Amar Singh decided to let him live. Otherwise one blow of the mighty Rathore's sword would have ended the mughal empire right then and there.

Let us see what new twist to our history these guys bring up now. I would encourage you to visit wiki more often.

- Shivraj Singh 09:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Every muslim who won a war in India,according to muslims on this wikipedia are rajputs e.g Ghori, Khilji's followers etc. only you can make such a claim. Can you please paste the words when Raja or myself ever asserted that? I think wisesabre once said that if Rajput means "King of sons" then why can't the sons of rulers of Muslims be categorized as Rajputs? and this question was asked in a different context and he, in my opinion, was not asserting that those should be categorized as Rajputs. You always talk about proof, I think it should be easier for you to at least bring up one regarding the above said claim of yours.

خرم Khurram 15:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Khurram,

Archives are open for browsing. Dig thru them and u will find stuff preserved in a pristine state.

203.101.50.29 16:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

My friend,

I know but it isn't me who has been continously claiming and generalizing this. So I think the one who makes a claim needs to justify it :) Don't you agree? The claim that I make is that neither Raja nor myself have ever acknowledged any such claim and according to my understanding we are the only ones so far on this page who are Rajputs and Muslims. I can prove mine, can you?

خرم Khurram 16:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting

I didnt feel surprised when I saw the word 'disputed' on the top of the page, and this huge war of words going on here. Somehow the term 'Muslim Rajput' sounds really unnatural. Never heard this before.

- Sumit

This discussion

Suggested direction for article

Biased historians

removal of poor bibliographic information

Complaint

Cleanup tag

Addition.

Bilateral dispute

dispute resolution

Gothean

Talk facts

Shiv

Hindu Rajputs

Goethean

But what has this got to do with Rajputs?

Zora cut and paste from hindu rajput page

Where's The Article

Zora your accusations regarding POV's, anti muslim bias, hindutva agenda, etc

possible compromise language?

Unprotected

tom's edit

Shiv in Action Again

Jo dridh rakhe dharm ko, tihi rakhe kartar

Interesting