Jump to content

Talk:Rajput

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 220.227.238.195 (talk) at 07:14, 26 December 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

non-rajputs

Dbachman do not delete what I write. We are not here to educate you. Go enroll yourself in a course on India. I posted the link of the book to show that majority of non-rajputs are arguing without even reading the material and references provided. This includes you.

Muslims have to give up there claims of being rajputs and then there can be a discussion on how to organize the rajput page. Perhaps Clans can be moved to a separate page with a link from the main page.

--DPSingh 12:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what, pray, did I delete? I did not ask you to educate anyone. If you sit back and enjoy Wikipedia, you'll have no bothers. If you insist on contributing, you will be asked to provide references, not for my benefit, but for that of our readers. If there are Muslim clans claiming to be Rajputs, I don't see how they are any different, from Wikipedia's perspective of WP:NPOV, than Hindu clans claiming to be Rajputs. Both are exactly the same to me. If they disagree, they can go hit each others with pointy sticks for all I care, for the purposes of Wikipedia, we will simply state that there is disagreement. dab (ᛏ) 14:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White Man's Burden

Tears well up in my eyes and my heart is rendered asunder seeing the self-appointed mediators bravely bearing the white man’s burden, which no one asked them to bear in the first place. -- sisodia the outlaw

This all stems from the fact that racism is still prevalent in the minds of most westerners. Third world population needs to be shown what objective research is , how you cite references and other crap. What these b*s forget is Nalanda and Taxila were giving out doctorates when Europeans did not even know what the word university means. --DPSingh 12:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
did I send you my picture now, or how do you know where my mother was from? And why do you think it is any of your business in the first place? If you could just write encyclopedic text and cite your sources, I would not care if you were a little green man. So they had "Universities" in India, in 500 BC? Good for them; too bad you were not there to get some education. I find it rather amusing to be called a "racist" by somebody as obviously immersed in national mysticism. Look: you are a bunch of so much text on screen to me.good edits, good for Wikipedia; bad edits, bad for Wikipedia, admins will come and block you. Since you are clearly beyond rational argument, I don't think Wikpedia should be held up any longer. I also don't care too much for having speculations about my genome on Wikipedia talkpages. It must be really difficult for you to understand "on topic", by all appearances. So there you go. I'm not paid to babysit you. I'll unprotect the article. Your sourced edits are welcome. Anything else will be rolled back. Be aware of WP:3RR, you will not be warned again should you violate policy. dab (ᛏ) 14:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dieter You may have meant well but your posts belied this as they sounded very condescending. If you wanted to get some info you should have just asked politely and everyone here would have obliged. If you look at your talk page I did leave a few messages regarding references there. Any way water under the bridge feel free to ask anything you would like to know and I will be happy to answer your questions. Shivraj Singh 18:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, but I'd rather read a book by some authority than being told "the truth about the Rajputs" as eternal fact on Wikipedia talkpages. If you know better than the published authorities, publish your own book. I don't pretend to know about Rajputs. I am here to remind you of what Wikipedia is about, and what the rules are. DPSingh has shown a ridiculous amount of condescension not only towards people with different viewpoints, but even towards the very founding principles of Wikipedia. At this point, I cannot take him seriously enough guide me to the next corner shop, let alone to tell me anything about "India" except his own sad little pinhole view. dab (ᛏ) 18:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Frame your questions and post them. Frustration so far has been people have not been disputing facts with written history from there side. Each point that I have made is backed up a reference from the books in the reference section. ( I know it is missing publisher/author info but I will update this data soon). Shivraj Singh 19:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suryabandhu "kinsman of the sun" to Dabachmann

Dbachmann: > If there are Muslim clans claiming to be Rajputs, I don't see how they are any different, from Wikipedia's perspective of WP:NPOV, than Hindu clans claiming to be Rajputs.

Whatever do you mean by Hindu clans "claiming" to be Rajputs???! When was any veracity lacking amidst us? Are there any particular Hindu clan claims to Rajputs, you doubt?

> Both are exactly the same to me.

From what point of view? Islam violates the very ethos and essence of a Rajput (reasons cited in earlier post). It would be correct now to only speak of Muslims from a Rajput-line, and not "Muslim-Rajputs". That's an oxymoron. Either they are not Rajputs or they are not true Muslims.

> If they disagree, they can go hit each others with pointy sticks for all I care

Not about hitting each other, but straightforward facts. Some researchers trace the origins of Islam to Shaivism, and some others to other pagan cults. But whatever the origin(s), the Muslim-identity took over as a distinct creed in itself. The case of some Rajput conversions is a similar one and should be treated as such. 61.247.244.252 18:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu[reply]
sigh, that's the "Hindu" pov. We are not about deciding who is "right", we are just about documenting what people claim. When I say that the Hindus and the Muslims are exactly the same to me, I am taking the neutral point of view, which is Wikipedia:policy and not debatable. dab (ᛏ) 18:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit wars (what else)

Messires Singh, you are edit warring. Consider the present (shabby) version our baseline. You may build up a better version step by step, looking for consensus as you go. You may not remove npov tags, "cite sources" tags (unless, of course, you do cite sources for the statement in question), or referenced statements (without giving reasons and looking for consensus first). You may, of course, remove the image if you don't like it, add your points to the present article (one by one please), etc.: this would be good faith editing. You may not insist on major reverts to your preferred version. I know the present version is bad. Improve it, collaborating with the editors whose views are different from yours. Offhand rejection of other views because they are "Muslim" or "Western" is not acceptable. Without readiness for such collaboration, you will acheive nothing at all on Wikipedia except for wasting your own and other people's time. dab (ᛏ) 09:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please dnt blame me for anything, im only trying to keep ur version of article in place, If any SS wants to progress with it I wont hinder him. but they are not trying to listen.Anyways cant we have rule that who ever reverts he should be blocked (including me), unless he cites sources.Wisesabre 10:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the premise is that sane people will outnumber those less so. don't worry, and please stick around and improve the article. dab (ᛏ) 21:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We will consider our version baseline and you guys point out what you disagree with and what historical text u have to back up ur claim. Also keep your language in check. If you have made up your mind that you are operating from the sane side then that is prejudice. Shivraj Singh 21:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
dab, can we see your psychiatrist certificate please? Its your sanity that is pricipally in doubt. -- sisodia the outlaw.

way to go guys, you really make a beautiful case for the Hindu side having the moral high ground. dab (ᛏ) 13:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you wouldn't call it the "hindu side". What is in dispute is more than the question of whether muslims can be rajput. Reversions by m/s singh also include many historical inaccuracies, which are also (perhaps only by chance) being reverted out by others. Firstly, many hindus would write a more objective history of these events. Secondly, the "muslim-rajputs" seem generally acquiescent to these inaccuracies, for whatever reason. ImpuMozhi 16:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Cool..lots of talk since I last saw this, but no real progress apparently. The unlettered outlaws have not been chased away by the light of scholarship. And my "clueless asides" on Indologists seem to have spurned someone into giving us some more info on dharm etc. somewhere above on this page...interesting. Anyway Mr. dab, I don't think we're here for a 'shastrarth', but hoping to see an undisputed article. If you would like to insist Ashoka coined dharm, you are most welcome to think whatever you want to think. And at the risk of jeopardizing our wikicareers, I do think it is a funny notion to harbour.
By the way Shiv, what do you think of 'infiltrating'(lol!) the competing page one para at a time. Then doing a diff will highlight just the points under attack (or discussion maybe) and not endless lines of text.
This book may be interesting for a few - "Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch, Vol. 2" [1]. Chapter 31 talks a bit of Hindus and Sikhs as well. Ss india 12:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"rāǧpwt" - whats this? At least that how it shows up on my browser even when the encoding is set to Unicode(UTF-8). Anyone like to explain?? Ss india 13:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
see Arabic alphabet. dab (ᛏ) 13:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, please, "infiltrate" your content one paragraph at a time. Your additions are welcome. You are reverted because of your removals. We will not clear up your messy "references" section for you, so do your own work, ok? dab (ᛏ) 13:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References

since you (Singhs) are clearly incapable of as much as adding a book to the references section properly, I have done that for you now. See [2]. I don't know why I am still helping you after all the abuse, but you will have to do your own work from now on, people will not clean up after you. If you think your article has a "References" section, I don't know what to say: It is a long unreadable list with boldfaced annotations, and the three books I added were the only ones halfway identifiable (still had to google around for them). Not a single IP was clickable, and one was invalid. Frankly, his is so far inferior to the standard of edits expected from you that I don't get up my hopes that we'll ever see anything usable from you. Being loud and stubborn buys you nothing here. You have to produce decent work. dab (ᛏ) 17:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do I understand wrong, or is it the case that the other books in the "references" section created by Dab are suggestions not actually used in crafting the article? If so, we should move it to a separate "suggested readings" section. I am doing so now, please amend if this is unsuitable. ImpuMozhi 19:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


While reading the "Hinduism and Buddhism, An Historical Sketch, Vol. 2 by Sir Charles Eliot"[3], a reference provided by SsIndia, I came across the following lines. I think they are directly related to some of the discussion here.

But as a rule sect and caste are not co-extensive and the caste is not a religious corporation.

Caste in its later developments is so complex and irregular, that it is impossible to summarize it in a formula or explain it as the development of one principle. In the earliest form known two principles are already in operation. We have first racial distinction. The three upper castes represent the invading Aryans, the fourth the races whom they found in India. In the modern system of caste, race is not a strong factor. Many who claim to be Brahmans and Kshatriyas have no Aryan blood, but still the Aryan element is strongest in the highest castes and decreases as we descend the social scale and also decreases in the higher castes in proportion as we move from the north-west to the east and south. But secondly in the three upper castes the dividing principle, as reported in the earliest accounts, is not race but occupation. We find in most Aryan countries a division into nobles and people, but in India these two classes become three, the priests having been able to assume a prominence unknown elsewhere and to stamp on literature their claim to the highest rank. This claim was probably never admitted in practice so completely as the priests desired. It was certainly disputed in Buddhist times and I have myself heard a young Rajput say that the Brahmans falsified the Epics so as to give themselves the first place. [177] The book also talks in detail about the evolution of Hinduism in its current shape and is an informative read. Thanks Ss. خرم Khurram 19:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the Aryan crap. Read the last part of this talk which I posted.[4] Shivraj Singh 20:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I remember watching a program sometime back that mentioned that the oldest human link is found in the Pothoar region but how can that nullify the Aryan invasion theory? It might be true that outside Africa, the human race started from India which itself was a part of Africa but that was before the humans came to the planet earth I believe. An absence of a direct land route to India from Africa is, I believe, the hardest point that this theory faces and it still has to prove this and only then it can be accepted. Even if the Europeans and Asians trace their origin to India, still there is ample evidence that shows that the North Western Indians (inhabitants of Indian subcontinent) are genetically different from their Southern counterparts. So it is possible that the humans spread out from India and then at different times the Aryans came back as invaders as the evidences show. خرم Khurram 20:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop inventing theories about Aryans. No archaelogical evidence for an invasion of aryans exist no matter how deep one digs. BTW this is genetics we are a talking about so if there was a rentry it would show up in genes and it does not. Shivraj Singh 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The genes of North Indians, their customs, their beliefs all are different from those of South Indians. What reason do you have for this? خرم Khurram 21:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phenotype (outward appearence) and Genes are two different things. Genes are passed on through selection that happens through marriages. Clearly upper caste marry in upper caste and so on. Upper class men tended to have relations with lower class women and this caused lower class to show genetic lines from upper class as well. Upper class (Brahmins and Kshatriyas) South indians and north Indians are very similar genetically. Rajus from Andhra have same phenotype as Rajputs/North Indians and they are Kshatriyas from Andhra. Whole AIT is junk. This was just an attempt of British towards cultural imperialism i.e subjugate the minds of Indians so that they remain slaves in there heads by showing nothing good came out of there own people but it was all a gift from "smart europeans". Shivraj Singh 22:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you also read the chapter I actually mentioned Khurram? The book has views pushing the Aryan invasion(+superiority) myth, sure that was the favourite probably among ALL western historians at that time (we were being portrayed as the long lost 'brothers' of our current rulers), so it is not surprising to see all that in his book. Hypotheses abound on this issue. Let us stay just on course. And yes, thanks for giving that last line about how he heard from a young rajput a comment about the epics, and it becomes part of his book? So much for scientific research. Many young rajputs are also telling so many things here...why don't you believe them?? :) Another link on Indian issues. [5] I hope to have more time to join this discussion later this week. Ss india 10:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What has been achieved?

Interestingly I had been asking for references and now my references are being trashed. Dieter having a word rajput in the title of a book is not a sufficient criterion for it to be added to the references. Somebody has to read it and then cite appropriate parts on the page for it to be relevant.

People who do not even know that Maharani Gayatri Devi is a rajput and Rani Durgavati is a rajput should go back to internet browsing and stay away from this page.

I have read all 61 books I mentioned on the references page. Question is about ISBN and publisher info which is coming soon.

My article is a lot bigger then yours so I am asking you for the nth time to point out what you dispute and cite historical refrences to substantitate ur claims. Mine will be the baseline and not your version.

Khurram and others you all know this very well that word muslim rajput can never be accepted on this page though I have got no problem in having a cup of coffee with you. So get over it and move on. Focus on the page that you want to create for your group. With new admins/participants we have new noise. Singal to noise still sucks.

I am reverting to my version and I again say be constructive and point out what you want to dispute.

Also from the muslim side somebody without mentioning muslim rajput craft a sentence that you all like and we will include that on the page. Shivraj Singh 20:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram and others you all know this very well that word muslim rajput can never be accepted on this page though I have got no problem in having a cup of coffee with you.
I have no problem joining you in a dinner my friend (if they serve Halal in that restaurant) and the bill will be on me but for the Muslim Rajput issue; you please provide me with a historically correct evidence about Muslims not being Rajputs. So far all that I have read points that religion has and never had anything to do with a caste. There had never been a uniform law to exclude someone from the caste and even when there were few, religion had never been one of them.
20:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


your version is evidently "accepted by all Rajputs", because according to your definition anyone disagreeing with you (and, for example, convert to Islam), cannot possibly be a Rajput. Nice. For the nth time, add your sad stuff, but don't remove the precious few sourced statements (yes, even including one about Muslims) that we have so far. dab (ᛏ) 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Funny Situation

I read all 61 of my books and neither westerners nor muslims read any other book (perhaps a few pages of Ibbetson was read) that they are pushing as references. Is this really scholarship? Now this admin blocked me for being disruptive!!! even though they are reverting the hell out of this page, all of them.

I wonder why they do not take up my challenge of proving the facts of my article wrong? Gauntlet has been there for last 4 months now.

This is again turning to be admin abuse just like admin Dmcdevit who blocked me for one week and User:Sisodia indefinetely. And this is not a bias against Hindus!

I am going to allow you all 12 hours to tell me what you find disputable (come with your references) on our version and if nothing comes up I will revert it back to my version.

Shivraj Singh 21:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


"I am going to allow you all 12 hours": that's just not how it works. This is an encyclopedia, not somewhere for you to promote your POV. Now, you need to work maturely and civilly with others. I understand if you feel frustrated, but for anyone who feels frustrated, WP:DR is the correct route. Edit warring is always bad (which is indeed what the block was intended to show you). Please use the dispute resolution process. What I'm sayng isn't about content. You may well be right (I wouldn't know), but your behavior is entirely wrong so far. Dmcdevit·t 05:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I am going to give you 12 hours (off wiki) if you don't stop this nonsense. I gave you my reasons for blocking you (for 30 minutes, I might add), have a look at your talkpage. Quoting Gauntlet was not among them. Our bias is against trolls and violation of WP policy. I don't even know if you are a Hindu, or a Muslim pulling a nasty caricature of a Hindu in an attempt to make Hindus look bad (in fact, the latter seems almost as likely to me, because you really make no case at all) dab (ᛏ) 11:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Racist bigots should mind there own f*g business. Do you realize you are making all admins look bad with your childish incomptence? --DPSingh 11:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this is my first look at this talk page and I am amazed how much crap the admins put up with and racist the Singhs are. The Sighns exhibit emotionalism over logic. If they could only discuss these matters rationaly there could be a meeting of minds.

Brinlarr

Singh is same as a lion. When angry/hungry they can bite your head off. This is a classic case of westerners aligning with there own skin without analysing a single fact. Point out one case where logic has given way to emotion.

--DPSingh 12:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brinlarr, do you want to know why do I display such emotionism? Try visiting the Chittore fort in place called Rajasthan in India someday. There, three times in history the Rajput women and children walked into their funeral pyre, just because the besieging Muslim armies would not give quarter to even the kids. Three times the men walked to their death in the battlefield in the face of Herculean odds; because they would rather die than live as defeated people. And these horrors were repeated not only in Chittore, but hundreds of times in all over India. Now, try convincing the descendents of these Rajput warriors if they would acknowledge the descendents those marauding Muslims as their kinsfolk.

You want an analogy; try convincing the Slavs of Balkans if they would accept Ottoman janissaries (who were mostly Slavs by genes) as fellow Slavs. This will give you a new perspective.

-- sisodia the outlaw

Protected

I have gone ahead and protected this page until disputes have been sorted out here. Please note: Any administrators who are involved in the dispute must not edit this page whilst it is protected - having the ability to is no excuse. FireFox 11:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed natural this would happen when muslim POV mongers and whiteboys who claim Gita was written after Ashoka are allowed a free run on an encyclopedia. How can Shivraj be blocked when his article is the one we all accept? Now I was blocked also.
Firefox is there a redressal system against wayward admins. I would like to file an official complaint against Bachman. --DPSingh 12:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to file a complaint then see WP:RFC and/or WP:RFArb. I am not saying that this is the correct path to take though. FireFox 12:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would welcome such a complaint, in fact I hope you go ahead and file an arbitration case, the sooner you get this over with the better. There are 600 admins here, all of them NPOV mongers, I am glad to say. dab (ᛏ) 12:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
for the record, the Gita is approximately contemporary with Ashoka. It may predate him by a century or two. So, I do not claim it postdates him: it may also post-date him by a century or so, nobody knows for sure. I have no opinion on Rajputs, but I do know a few things about the historical grammar of Sanskrit. dab (ᛏ) 13:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]



the first link is an rfc composed by another choleric that never went live. You see, this is not the first time I have to deal with people who Just Don't Get It (TM). Create your rant at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_(2) please. dab (ᛏ) 14:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sigh, of course you will need help in compiling it, seeing your failure at much more elementary tasks. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_user for a template (Does it qualify as irony to assist trolls in filing an rfc against you?) dab (ᛏ) 14:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
dab how do i qualify for trollish behaviour? Infact i've one of the most sanest guys here ready to meaninfully discuss Muslim Pov. As for templates... you dont need to be a rocket scientist to modify the page. If you are soo fretful about the template then modify it yourself. Got better things to do..अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 15:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to write my own RfC now? Whoever is eager to present a decent RfC to the community, I recommend they bring it into proper form.
Yes, I am not saying you are the same as the Singhs and their IPs. If you concentrate on solving content issues rather than composing RfCs, I do have hope you may defuse the situation. Just don't be fooled into endorsing the Singh's behaviour just because you share their general pov. Khurram seems most ready for a reasonable debate. He is even prepared to document povs that are not his own. I am sure you can come to splendid results if you adopt his attitude and collaborate with him.
Are you sure you want to "endorse" the RfC as worded? It looks like you wrote it now, while originally you just posted the rant left by 211.118.172.74 (talk · contribs). I am afraid that if you endorse "charges" against me like "consistent vandalism", "total contempt for civil behaviour", and "very poor knowledge", I am afraid you will look no better than the troll. If you want to mediate, you could help the Singhs inserting their piece into the present article (i.e., keep additions and removals separate. They seem to be unable to understand that their edits are reverted for the removals they contain, not the additions). dab (ᛏ) 15:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken... i suggest you tone down your language a bit. You are bound to alienate Hindu/Indian contributers here. Lastly you must accept the fact that this article and for that matter any disputed article cant be toned down to complete neutrality (being Swiss you might find it hard to understand). My friend the problem is that most of medieval Rajput history is about Rajputs fighting Muslim conquerors and thats how their historic contribution to Indian and Hindu civilization is seen. I'm ok with Muslim Rajputs getting their due in this article. But no historical revisionism please for the sake of neutrality. अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 16:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
by all means! By saying "I'm ok with Muslim Rajputs getting their due in this article" you are of course already a traitor to the Rajputs in DPSingh's book, but this is precisely what we want. If the bullies had been on the Muslim side, my RfC would now be filed by Muslims. I am most ready to concede your point about medieval Rajputs. I think the references to Muslim Rajputs are intended to refer to the present, and to the British Raj. NPOV does not mean "toning down" at all, btw. It means presenting povs side by side, see WP:NPOV.

Somebody is afraid here and trying to influence people to not go against him. Not gonna work you rascist bigot. People from our side can see through your farce . You are praising Khurram when his gang equated rajputs to jihadis and mohammed's cousins. Amay I did not realize you had already filed the RFC. Thanks. --DPSingh 16:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't apply the terms like "you rascist bigot" to any wikieditor, let alone to such a respectable person as Mr Bachmann. Also, read WP:Civility before posting further comments. If I see you insulting anyone again, I will have to file a RfC against you. --Ghirlandajo 09:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Go ahead and do whatever you feel like. I will say it again. Bachman is a racist bigot. Get more of his clones to waste pages and WP will grind to a halt. Before anyone opens there mouth on a topic on a talk page, where experts flock, you better be armed with real knowledge. All his statements till date are childish, historically incorrect and denigrating to rajputs and hinduism. Personally he is disresepctful to Hindus holy book, Gita and in common parlance he is condescending.

I could care less about all these but on a page of history people better show some depth before they be allowed to edit or voice there POV.

--DPSingh 12:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]



so far for "toning down", ey? do keep concentrating on me, please, maybe AMbroodEY and Khurram can get a minute of peace to work on the article together. dab (ᛏ) 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree AMbroodEY that most of the achievements of Rajputs is thought to be fighting the Muslim invaders since Muslims of Central Asia were the only force to invade India after the appearance of Rajputs in 6th Century A.D. But even in fighting with the Muslim invaders the Rajputs never were on one side. There were Rajputs fighting for the Muslims (both Muslim and Hindu Rajputs) and there were Rajputs fighting against Muslims (both Muslim and Hindu Rajputs again). We cannot single out one sect of that fighting force on the basis of religion and completely deny the other who fought alongside them. Also it is not the Rajputs fighting against the Muslims who mostly contributed to the history and civilization of India, it were the Rajputs in the Muslim Emperor's camps who contributed more to the Indian civilization in terms of art, architecture and literature and ideas. Also we need not only mention their ferocity in fight, we need to mention their inability to form a cohesive force to oppose their opponents. We need to tell that besides being praised for their courage and bravery, they largely allied themselves with anyone who guarantees their rule. A very recent example of this was them allying with the British to keep their rules save from Marathas. I myself feel it is a pity that instead of talking and bringing out a comprehensive article about the achievements and contributions of Rajputs, we are engaged in a non-existing debate of whether or not Muslims are Rajputs. خرم Khurram 16:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Far from sucking up anyone, I have no idea if this is correct. Just keep everything closely referenced, and I'm sure the two of you can beat out a way to word it. But it is true that apart form the repetitive assertions of "we all agree with this" on this talkopage, we have seen no indication that a "Muslim Rajput" question even exists. For all I have seen, it is a non-issue (except maybe in DPSingh's village, I am prepared to take his word for that, but not for more) dab (ᛏ) 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All Go to this link and voice your opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29

--DPSingh 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Khurram: > Also it is not the Rajputs fighting against the Muslims who mostly contributed to the history and civilization of India, it were the Rajputs in the Muslim Emperor's camps who contributed more to the Indian civilization in terms of art, architecture and literature and ideas.

A Rajput allied with a Muslim does not make that Rajput himself a Muslim!

61.247.243.87 19:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu[reply]


Extremely sorry to be posting this, but I thought it rather disturbing to note our Mr. Dab's sudden interest in the Bhagavad Gita page precisely when the talk here was on that topic. And the 'date' of its being written in particular. If he had been working on it since Oct, Nov, I would have thought nothing...but this is rather strange.... [6]. Later on he modified it further to tell us when 'Scholars' think it was written. Not showing you in a positive light Mr. Dab....and ofcourse no-ones accusing you of anything but it was just too wierd not to note. Ss india 19:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surya A Rajput allied with a Muslim does not make that Rajput himself a Muslim! Off course my friend. I never claimed or implied that.

Ss, I feel strange about the above allegation my friend and am not able to understand what is the objection here? I think there is much to learn from the book that you provided the reference of. Isn't it?

خرم Khurram 19:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram, don't worry about analysing my 'allegation'. The book I sent the link does have a lot in there, did you see vols. 1 & 3 as well? Overall though I hope you do understand that you need to exercise caution in his interpretation of how the people followed their faith... you know that an overwhelming majority of the sahibs did live in isolation from the natives they had been writing about. I think you will agree about this if you read some books (fiction) written by them in the early 1900s. Its a pretty long book, and I havent read it enough to reach any conclusions though. Ss india 10:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how is this weird? When we were talking about the Gita here, I went to look at its article, and saw that it could be improved. What's your point? dab (ᛏ) 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected...

We can't keep this page protected forever, so, for now I am unprotecting it. If users continue to make potentially controversial edits without discussing, this page get re-protected for a longer period of time. Additionally, the three revert rule still applies, and anyone who violates that may be blocked without further warning. FireFox 11:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Good. Keep an eye out for bigots and POV mongers flocking here in the garb of knowledgable historians. --DPSingh 12:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well said, DPS. Thankfuly, you are easy to spot, since you're not even bothering with a garb. To buy this article some direly needed peace, I will block without further warning anyone who (a) removes the NPOV template, or (b) removes properly quoted references (such as Kasturi). Blocks will begin at 12 hours, and will increase in duration for repeat offenders. I will not block for addition of material, sourced or unsourced, so nobody can say I am protecting one pov in particular. Anybody who disagrees with my blocks can take them to my RfC (which still needs to be put in proper format, note the delisting notice). dab (ᛏ) 12:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Rajputs stand out in a crowd and are easy to spot. Regarding rest of your rant: change the word you with dab and read it again. This is what I feel about you because you are reverting Shivraj's sourced article which he created from his references. Ofcourse I am not admin otherwise I would have blocked your ass.

--DPSingh 14:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


DPS, since you did both (a) and (b) before I could finish my post above, here's another warning: do it again, and you'll be blocked for 12 hours. dab (ᛏ) 12:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really. Is Wikipedia your father's property or is it based on your whims? There are rules here and admins have to follow those. I am linking this threat of yours to your RFC unless ofcourse you chicken out and delete it as you deleted sisodia's criticism.

-- DPSingh 14:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I do not think it will appear very "proffessional" if you do the blocking, seeing as you are involved in editing this article. I would suggest let me patrol and do the blocking as I see fit. FireFox 12:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
that's fine with me. I insist I am not involved; I am as an admin because of the edit war, just like you are. I have no opinion on the matter, but I've been targeted by the Singhs for insisting on policy. dab (ᛏ) 12:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to keep an eye on things here... the only times I have edited this article were to add and remove the protected template. Other than that I have had no direct involvment with the article. FireFox 12:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Net savvy Rajputs

Can one of you look at Bachman's RFC and figure what is wrong with its format?

Firefox can you give us an idea what is wrong with it?

--DPSingh 14:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_user. FireFox 14:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some mods to the RFC. Can you guys take a look and see if things look OK? --DPSingh 16:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sigh, it's close enough now. The sad thing is that it looks like you are really trying, so this must actually be the best you can do. I think in the present form it is close enough to a properly formatted RfC, and I have removed El C's note. You are still required to fill out "Applicable policies" and "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". dab (ᛏ) 16:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Q: Can one of you look at Bachman's RFC and figure what is wrong with its format? A: Its core existance.

خرم Khurram 14:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Map

Well, I came here to add a historical evidence regarding Rajpootana state dating 1831. But the place looks like a battlefield. Perhaps, will come back later when/if you guys are done... --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 15:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Miljoshi say what you have to say. Rajputs are used to battles. If you understand Hindi there are some very nice couplets regarding Rajputs and battles. --DPSingh 15:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes, DPS, but do you understand "encyclopedia"? It's not supposed to be a battlefield. I have inserted your stuff now, as I have asked you to do many times, but just got called "racist bigot" for my pains. Seriously, are you a 12 year old? You cannot follow the most simple instructions, not even when trying to file an RfC against me. You must be either a troll, or incredibly limited in cognitive skills. I didn't add the lengthy "Invasion" stuff, since that section has a main article, and the text was in broken English. I won't ask you to write a summary, since that will be evidently far beyond your capabilities. Please let grown up editors work on the article in peace now. There are many places on the internet where your belligerence can be put to better use. dab (ᛏ) 16:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

to the others: needless to say, I don't endorse any of the stuff I copied from the Singh version. I am attempting to stop the fruitless edit war. Now feel free to refactor things, and add {{fact}} to anything disputed. Of course, if no reference is brought forward for disputed statements, you may remove them after a day or two. dab (ᛏ) 16:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peace please... DPSingh, while I appreciate your point and dedication for contributing in-depth details, imho, I need to agree with dab that the length and the readability of the article is an issue. May I request you to consider the following please?

  • The primary objective of the article here is to provide a holistic view of the term Rajput by keeping the NPOV in mind.
  • It should be kept into consideration that anyone (specifically a non-native - i.e. a non-Rajput or a non-Indian) should be able to appreciate and easily understand this article and the context behind it. Article: Malwa - which, incidentally, is also being considered a candidate for a Featured Article, is a good example.
  • The detailed information needs to be sub-divided into respective article titles, and their reference can be provided. See: Mahatma Gandhi - there is a mountain of information available on the subject, yet consider how clean the representation is! On the other hand, it could also give you the opportunity to contribute to may be 5 different articles regarding Rajputs rather than to just one...

--Regards. Miljoshi | talk 16:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miljoshi length of the article is a cosmetic change and can be achieved by creating links from the main page. But Bachman is not fighting for the length. He is pushing his POV about muslims being rajputs etc, about dates of Gita and a whole lot more. --DPSingh 17:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't contest that, DPS. If dab can provide authoritative reference, and clarify the context, we can discuss that. Else, it would be excluded just like the other stuff. I think once the length and structure of the page becomes manageable, many things would be amicably sorted out. Having said that, would you consider having a closer look at Rajputana article? I think it needs some attention too. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 17:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, I contest it. I found a single 2002 reference referring to Muslim Rajputs, and all I am asking is that you don't remove it. The date of the Gita is not an issue here, and used as a red herring by the trolls. dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I will look at rajputana page. Battle brewed because people are pushing POV's without sourcing any books and one of them thought, being an admin, he could twist arms and get his POV accepted. Most references pushed by Bachman are irrelevant and I doubt if he took the pains to turn a single page of these books mentioned. I will grant you he read a few pages of Kasturi. I have that book and in that entire book there is no focus on muslim rajputs. There is one sentence which states in some ridiculously worded english that rajputs converted to Islam. --DPSingh 17:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

at least I can quote books, unlike people who apparently think "Maheca Rathaurom ka mula itihasa: Ravala Mallinatha ke vamsaja - Maheca, *Baramera, Pokarana, Kotariya aura" is acceptable as an encyclopedic reference. dab (ᛏ) 18:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


What is wrong with this reference? This is a well researched book on Mallinath a very famous Rathore and his descendants. There origins, there wars, there relations with present rulers of Jodhpur and Bikaner are described in this book. This prejudice that you bring here because history in other then English does not make sense to you is the source of all problems. Dude I think we have had enough of you here. You better find a different page where your views might make more sense. Shivraj Singh 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DBachmann, you are again being disrespectful to native Indian writers. If this is not racism, what else is? I warn you one last time that lay off from these pages, or face the disciplinary action.

-- sisodia the outlaw

I am not objecting to the book, you clown, I am objecting to the way it is referenced. Are you really that dense? How are we even to know it is a book? Who is the author? Year of publication? Publisher? ISBN? See Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you manage to properly quote your books, I don't care who wrote them. If you can quote it properly, it will still be problematic that it is in Hindi, this being the English Wikipedia, but we will at least know you are not making stuff up. It is permissible to quote non-English sources, but you have to be very specific why you are quoting it, and what you are quoting. If you can get the same information from an English source, use that. dab (ᛏ) 09:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Racist bigot, Shivraj has mentioned multiple times his list is incomplete. I have no reason to doubt his word that these are real books. You start of with the assumption that these are ficticious and I do not. That is the difference in positive and negative thinking. Swiss cheese is melting due to little heat.

--DPSingh 15:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last revert

I've been asked to justify my reverts, which is fair enough. DBachmann has made a real effort to open up the non-Shivraj version and insert much of Shivraj's material in it. I see an effort from that side to make progress, and Shivraj and allies refusing to make any concessions at all. I don't think that the version to which I reverted is all that good, but it's better than the Shivraj version. I ordered a copy of that Rajput identity book and when it gets here, and I've read it, I'll feel as if I have something more to contribute to the article. (Yeah, I meant to avoid being drawn into this and spending yet more money on books, but I love learning things.) Zora 08:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When westerners make an effort it is a "real effort". When they write history it is "real history". Grow up.

--DPSingh 16:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which book is that? No one book is of course adequate, but I can point you out to the book that I suspect is at the root of the attitude problem of some people here. 67.20.232.184 14:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh start

I do not claim to possess the subject-matter expertise on the topic of this article. But I know as much history that the term Rajput draws respect and goes hand-in-hand with dignity and pride. And my appeal is for the kind of mannerism and behavior that does justice to the term.

I would like to suggest a Fresh start for the sake of the future of this article, and would request all present and previous editors/contributors to participate. Please state your agreement/suggestions below. Also, I am sure you would agree that it can be achieved only if the following guidelines are strictly followed by all editors and admin:


If required and as suggested by an Admin previously, please feel free to seek help of Wikipedia_Talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics for procedures, guidelines, consultation, etc.


Please sign your entry with ~~~~.


Comments/Suggestions

Charge 9 From the RFC

Miljoshi you are mistaken. People's thinking does not change. I have poured through the archives of disucssions and there seem to have been many "fresh starts". If there is any group here which supports these muslims when they have equated jiahdis with rajputs and thereby islamic terrorists of this world what else is left? Cleanest solution is give them there sand box to play in , let them create there own page as some others have voiced before.

This is what M A Jinnah said in 1940: (Some say his ancestors were rajputs.).

The differences in India were far greater then those between European countries and were of vital and fundamental character... The Muslims had a different conception of life from the Hindus. They admired different qualities in there heroes, they had a different culture based on Arabic and Persian instead of Sanskrit origins. There social customs were entirely different. Hindu society and philosophy were the most exclusive in the world. Muslim and Hindus have been living side by side in India for a thousand years but if you went into any city one would see separate Hindu and Muslim Quarters.

This pretty much sums up the argument so far as well as future conclusion that will be effective.

Cut and Paste from the RFC :

User:Dbachmann is supporting people on rajput page who have just in the recent past claimed that Islamic Jihadis (by implication Islamic terrorists of the world) are Rajputs. How can an admin push the POV of such a group of people?

"All these points prove that a Rajput is a product of both nature and nurture. Born into a house of ideals, raised with a Martial upbringing with a strong sense of honour and nobility. Thus we Muslim Rajputs may not be Kshatriyas, but we are Mujahids, which means 'one who engages in Jihad' and the ideals of a Mujahid are much more strenuous and honour bound in the sense that we must act with the knowledge that we will be accountable to our Lord one day..... . It was this similarity that made the transition from Hindu Kshatriya Rajput into a Muslim Mujahid Rajput an easy one seeing as the ideals are extremely similar. A perfect example of a perfect Mujahid Royal can be seen in Sultan Salauddin Yusuf Ayyubi of the Crusades who liberated the Holy Land from the Crusaders."

[7]

-Interesting. Considering Im the one that posted that, I still, after several months of your nonsensical and 'un-intellectual' debating, dont understand how this para points to a perfect Mujahid Royal being a Hindu Kshatriya? I believe the question was asked as to how these ideals fitted to Muslims seeing as they had no concept of a Rajput in their religion. I merely proved it was there, similarly, NOT IDENTICAL but similar. Please advise how this made Sultan Salaudin a Kshatriya in this para? It doesn't so please let go of mud slinging and get on with fixing the article. --Raja 03:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great. You claimed jihadis are rajputs and now you want to back out. Your group has been doing this from day one. Say one thing and then deny it. Remember rajputs are known for there word. Constant disowning of your statments is not what rajputs practice. Shivraj Singh 04:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You must take a lesson or two in English my friend, you seriously lack understanding of this statement. I stated I posted that the ideals are similar not identical. In my view whenever you are found/proven you give an empty sound of victory which is only matched by the comical lack of it. You guys are highly entertaining. Is this entire argument because we Rajputs left your Rajasthan many centuries ago, migrated and conquered a region in Punjab and left you guys in the desert to argue pointless gotras? If it is, then we progressed, you guys clearly regressed. You dont have to accept us, we ruled without your acceptance and didnt care much for marriages with or without your clans as we only intermarried with other Muslim Royals. But The Hindu Rajputs on the other did offer hands of marriage to the Timurid dynasty/Muslim Royals aka the Mughals did they not? Ofcourse they did.

All the above para points to is how one of Rajput lineage can make the transition to Islam and yet still continue his Martial traditions in a honour and faith regulated way, when the question was posed as to how it can be. --Raja 13:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Say one thing and then deny it. Remember rajputs are known for there word. Constant disowning of your statments is not what rajputs practice.

Rich. Especially when coming from the person who tried to use the Sikh argument that Rajputs and Sikhs identity was that they fought Islam. But when I proved to you the the 10th Illustrious Guru of the Sikhs Guru Gobind Singh had fought with the same Hindu hill Rajputs because they were (and I quote AGAIN) "For they are the idol worshippers and I the idol breaker....". then you guys backed out and never used them again! Fantastic. A Rajput ethic is based in honour, not ego. Duryodhan had ego which was his destruction at the hands of the Pandavs. It takes a true noble to admit where he is corrected. But continue as you are proving our point countless times by preaching ignorance and attacking admins efforts for a page DEDICATED TO OUR ANCESTORS.--Raja 13:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--DPSingh 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for revert by Digvijay as requested by MilJoshi

Reason for revert is simple. I would like this article to be improved. I encourage everyone to discuss what they don't like. Someone mentioned lenght and I am all for changing the length by having sublinks to breakout articles. But this is just my opinion others should also opine. Perhaps there can be two discussions on this talk page. One on what people agree and the other on what they do not. And see if things move.

--DPSingh 17:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DP,

We have seen the reference to the above paragraph that you qouted again and again and I think it is a waste of time to explain it again. Yet for the sake of clarification I would like to tell you that it is never implied or said that Salahuddin was a Rajput. He was shown as an example of a warrior who had royal blood in him and this was to tell about the transformation from a Kshytria to a Mujahid.

The differences between Hindus and Muslims are of religious nature and not of social nature. Mr. Jinnah was true when he said that both nations see differnt qualities in their heroes and if I may then I would say that the first quality that they look for is the religion. This talk page is an ample proof of it. But the question that we are discussing here is not of Hindus or Muslims, it is about Rajputs.

According to Ibbetson and Charles Eliot both have explained in their work that caste has always been independent of religion in India. Kasturi also mentioned that Rajputs cannot only be Hindus. You are continously pushing the POV that a Muslim can not be a Rajput although you still have not been able to provide a single unbiased source that says so. What you are describing is a POV that didn't even exist. This is why I have reverted your version.

Remember even in order to argue that Muslims cannot be Rajputs, you need to provide citations.

خرم Khurram 19:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Digvijay posted an excerpt from Ibbetson's book. Did you read it? If yes then why are you still arguing? If you want to cite counter examples to Ibbetson remember statistics. One case or two is irrelevant. What "majority" does is that counts. Shivraj Singh 04:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Khurram, a lot of the stuff you are quoting is also Aryan invasion theory based. I am sure you are aware of the change in the credibilty of such a theory. [8] Ss india 20:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ss, what does Aryan invasion theory has to do with Rajputs? Aryan invasion theory has yet to be proven wrong and even if proven wrong what effect does it have on the Rajputs and the social culture of India? Rajputs are a product of a social system developed a lot later than the Aryan migration/invasion.
خرم Khurram 20:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Logic 101 class. The onus is always upon the proponents of a theory to prove it right first, and not on the opponents to prove it wrong. If I propose a theory that orginal inhabitants of Pakistan were Cherokee Indians who came to these parts travelling on canoes twenty thousands years ago, will it get the approval of everybody till you prove it wrong, which ofcourse is impossible to prove one way or other because of the lack of any evidence.
-- sisodia the outlaw.
Khurram, I brought up my objection to the Aryan invasion stuff, because if you read the quote from Eliot you posted earlier....he builds his argument on a foundation that is.... not a well proven one shall we say? Agreed the theory itself has not much to do with Rajput topic directly, but it is the basis of your quote, and your side of the argument. Ss india 10:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly guys. A theory is based on some evidence which provides the basis of it. The evidence of Aryan migration is certainly there (read the page, im not cut and pasting it here) It is therefore still a theory. A confirmed HISTORICAL FACT is something else, which is what you are confusing this point with. He believes in the theory based on the evidence around. If you are countering this theory because dear Dr Ambedkar is pushing the theory even more, then your disagreement is tainted with your bias. If it isn't (which it shouldnt be) then prove here why? It's incredible because many Rajputs and Jatts propound Iranian talk pages with talks of being their cousins! What does the Hindu Arya Samaj mean then?
Are you by any chance denying this theory because today you guys dont resemble any of the images of the ancient ancestors you lay claim to from the holy images? I have yet to see one image of Ram, Pandavs as darker skinned, short and small eyed. All the images are contrary to the common Rajastani 'look' here. (In essence then, by admitting this theory, Shiv's argument of Rajputs only intermarrying with higher castes ALWAYS will then fall down because clearly the blood of the Harrapans has entered to a great number within his respective homeland Rajput community)This is a debate that can go on forever, but the fact is the article must have BOTH opinions presented in the interest of neutrality. --Raja 13:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I mean how dumb do you have to be before you are kicked out of here. Do you realize Devaki Nandan was referred to as Shyam. What does Shyam mean? You talk out of your ass as if you know India. Now you say another word about hindu religion and I will go ballistic on you.

--DPSingh 17:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

almost limitlessly, I am afraid. But with language like this, you are not too far from being kicked out, if that's what you are looking for. dab (ᛏ) 17:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I think this article is in this state today simply because the previous attempts of re-thinking would have been sabotaged. But it is a positive sign that some discussion is happening now. Thank you. And a consensus can be reached in good faith with some negotiations. I say this because I believe that all editors/contributors want this article to be in a good shape and serve its purpose in the context of Wikipedia (which, as I had stated earlier, is to provide a holistic view of the term Rajput). Having said that, if it is a matter of citing a specific para in the article (having verifiable sources, and falling in line of the context), I think it can be sorted out by re-wording the text such that its inherent thought becomes more clear and acceptable.

I think it will yield better results if the existing content of the article is further divided under respective headings/sub-heading. By doing so, every editor can focus on a specific area and improvise. Here, I must say that as per the practice on Wikipedia, a section needs to have its respective criticism or counter-point. Because otherwise, it will not be termed as NPOV and some moderator may flag it up as non-neutral, which would put everyone's hard-work at stake.

Also, may I request everyone not to interject their comments on top of existing ones please? Please maintain branching of the thread so that it remains clear and your point is not missed. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 10:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shivraj has reverted the rajput page

I reverted it because muslim POV is debunked by Ibbetson. There was a para posted to that effect earlier. People touting Ibbetson should read that para. And also remember statistics. An exception to the rule can always be found. What you need to show is what the majority was doing. Exceptions abound: There are people with 6 fingers and so on. So think and then post. Shivraj Singh 04:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benazir Bhutto in her autobiography quotes someplace "In my veins ,runs the blood of the wadheras" (wadhera being a Rajput clan of Eastern Rajasthan). This phenomenon runs deep in the subcontinent..not only in islamic communities but also in christians etc. for e.g in the syrian christian sect of Kerala, altar boys are only chosen from the families who were brahmins before they got converted to christianity ( they still keep track of their gotra,kul etc )... Konkani muslim married women wear sindoor and mangalsutra etc etc.

first incorporation then gradual elimination of non-semitic culture and religion.

If they have left their old faith's core beliefs, then why would they hold on to it's simple traditions? The bigger transition has already been made?! --Raja 14:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dbachmann..stop teaching me about the sun being a minor/major star etc...Go read the surya siddhanta ( circa 1800 BC)..written by a VEDIC HINDU scholar. You cannot divorce religion from the topic , since the essence of being a rajput is intimately connected to the hindu religion.

It isn't. If so, then please provide evidence of how a new Rajput race can be created today. It cant. So it's obviously lineage based. This is a talk page on Rajputs in general, not a romanticised Hindutva view on what they should be. --Raja 14:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese royalty consider themselves to be descendants of the sun-goddess amaterasu..so .Lol..if someone writes that on wikipedia..what will you tell him then...prove it.LOL.

If a modern swede comes and tells you he could have been descended from the vikings...

dbachmann you should not tell him, that the vikings believed in thor/wotan/odin and since we can't provide objective proof ( beyond mythology )of either of thor/wotan/odin..so they dont exist..so the vikings didnt exist ..so you dont exist.

Personal attacks. Again. --Raja 14:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and I was asking Khurram that question ,stop interfering ..., Thats a basic question.how can u reconcile and compare islamic cosmology to hindu cosmology. (adam & eve Vs Born of Sun ,fire etc )...so please let him answer and kindly stop babysitting him.

This is a discussion page for all to contribute. Read the guidelines before warning admins.--Raja 14:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to come across Christian samurais or jewish vikings..then how the hell can muslims claim to be rajputs ?

Well if you travelled outside of Rajasthani rhetoric then maybe you will find some. We Muslim Rajputs have ruled for centuries without the dispute of your ancestors. It's a late argument today dont you think? :)--Raja 14:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and ..threaten us all you want..we will hang in here...and keep reverting back to and maintain an unbiased version of the page (Unbiased = non-western,non-islamic POV .) You forgot to include NON HINDUTVA EXTREMIST too. Cheers --Raja 14:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ta ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Son of Kurus (talk • contribs)


Freak alert !

Freak on kshatriya: talk page of wikipedia..who claims that rajputs are "bastards" and Buddha was a negro. Gave him sufficient food for thought, yet he continues to rant. Yet another Paki. Kinsmen here, please come and have a look there and put him further in his place .

Son of Kurus 12:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I request you to limit the discussion on this page to the Rajput article please? However, you may put your comments on the respective article or user talk pages. Further, it is required to leave out personal attacks in accordance with the WP Policy as stated above. Thanks. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 13:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Zhora's Islamic jihadi POV

She has not contributed a single constructive sentence to this page . Till y'all keep supporting the claims of these muslims where they have equated islamic jihaadis with rajputs you will be reverted.

--DPSingh 13:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary I think she contributed much here, but sadly it didnt correspond to your agenda DP, so you've not equated it to much at all. Keep up the good work Zora and thank you for your efforts. Much appreciated I assure you :) --Raja 13:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi Rajputs

It is becoming quite clear that much of the 'uneducated' and 'ignorant' views here stem from the Rajasthanis ill informed view of Punjab. Punjab has been a melting pot of cultures and tribes. In such an environment the identity of a Rajput or any tribe is even more distinct because they are all either allying with one another or competing. The Rajputs who migrated to to Punjab contributed much to the localities and gave strong personalities in history and gained respect and recognition as strong rulers of many regions within this State. The majority of Muslim Rajputs are all in Punjab and they are almost alien to the Rajastanis by view of progressing into another culture and also because the Rajastanis progressing their own respective culture further. This was natural. It also happened to breed the extremist rhetoric that we are seeing here which I believe is because of their naiver view of Punjab, no matter how many books on Punjab by Hindutva historians they read. They claim that dab cant argue anything because he (and I quote) a 'white boy' but then they also cant argue about Punjabis by that notion as they clearly ARE NOT Punjabi Rajputs at all.

I think it will be a good idea to include this portion into the article too seeing as Punjabis also vehemently claim Rajput ancestry too but are very distrinct in their practices and even faiths to the old desert dwelling Rajasthanis. They are a distinct group in many ways but also Rajputs who progressed to other regions playing key roles in history too. The article in it's current form is too 'Rajastani' which ofcourse is the origin of many Rajputs but not the 'present' at all.--Raja 13:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


There is no such thing as a punjabi rajput or a rajasthani rajput. They are all rajputs. Read carefully the article page to learn where rajputs reside today. You are the one who called islamic jihaadis and thereby islamic terrorists as rajput. So take this theory and argument to islamic wikipedia if it exists.

--DPSingh 13:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point on your groups naivity proven. Again :) --Raja 13:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Let's try to move away from 'Jihadi' and 'Hindutva' shall we? If you have info on how the Punjabi (Pakistani Punjab, I will assume) Rajputs, have become 'alien' to Rajasthani culture, bring it forward. Adding stuff about customs local to certain regions would be interesting, but I doubt if that is the root cause of the conflict here. Ss india 14:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I mention this because of the narrow minded view of the Rajastanis here of only Hindu, only Rajastan view that is being promoted here. The differences are mainly stemming from religious practices, and the religions themselves adopted by the Rajputs of this region and even down to daily practices which are shared by all tribes of Punjab too. This will be beneficial to the article and will provide a more wider view of the accomplishments, contributions and practices of migrated Rajputs. Hopefully during the holidays I will be able to collate it and indeed post it here for the article.--Raja 14:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there are/is verifiable evidence/reference of the stated claims (either view), may I propose to dedicate a whole section such as Rajputs of Modern India? The other branches (which are considered to be in minority or distant) should have their mention separate from this new section (It can't be ignored, because it will be inappropriate for the term). This suggestion is based on my understanding of the fact that history of Rajputs is very long and glorious, and is beyond the modern boundaries. But because it is predominant in the area (ref: historical but comparatively recent map on Rajputana) around Rajasthan today, a dedicated section should be able to justify it. On the other hand, it is also plausible that there can be a section such as Rajputs outside Modern India (if the evidence/reference support it). --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 15:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's only fair to say that thus far this discussion is evidence alone of the broadness that is 'Rajput', regionally, religiously and even culturally too. Good ideas Miljoshi, I uspport encompassing the whole range. --Raja 18:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MilJoshi these claims of jihaadis and hence terrorists being rajputs is made by these same muslims. Now they are running away from there own claims. By induction if one claim is preposterous the next one is too i.e rajputs being muslims. You do not need a reference for this. Also they are trying to drive a wedge between rajputs of India by calling them rajasthani/punjabi etc. This is a style to deviate from the main topic of discussion.

Naivity proven yet again :) --Raja 18:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has been explained already, please read it Dig. Do you have anything constructive to offer here? Other than name calling? --Raja 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let us discuss Ibbetson because they had been using that source for there claim to fame so far and Ibbetson states hindu rajputs ceased to be rajputs because of the practice of widow-remarriage. Muslim being rajput is a figment of there imagination.

  • Denzil Ibbetson, "Tribes and Castes of Punjab and NWFP" (1892) ISBN 8120605055

I dusted off ibbetson that someone has been citing here and on para 446 in census report of 1881 he mentions that Gaurwa rajputs of Gurgaon and Delhi, though retaining the title of Rajput in deference to the strength of caste feeling and because the change in their customs was too recent for the name to have fallen into disuse, had for all purposes of equality communion or intermarriage ceased to be rajputs since they took to Karewa or widow marriage. These muslims have been touting Ibbetson. When Gaurwa ceased to be rajputs just by changing the custom of widow-remarriage the retention of rajputi by conversion to islam is ape-shit.

--DPSingh 16:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Because in the same book he acknowledged the existence of Muslim Rajputs! You cant pick and choose points to suit your own ideology Dip.--Raja 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Kurus: >You cannot divorce religion from the topic , since the essence of being a rajput is intimately connected to the hindu religion. 

              Raja: > It isn't. If so, then please provide evidence of how a new Rajput race can be created today. It cant. So it's obviously lineage based. This is a talk page on Rajputs in general, not a romanticised Hindutva view on what they should be.


As regards the connection between religion and rajput, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput/Archive16#Suryabandhu


Why should one think of creating a new Rajput race when the old Dharm hasn't died yet?! So its not "obviously lineage based"; a Dharm holds a race, a blood-group together, and inculcating this Dharm prolongs that race.

So religion is very i n t i m a t e l y tied with lineage, as Hindu Dharm with Rajputs.

Your blatant disregard and denial of this fact, along with Khurram, et.al. does nothing to pervert the meaning and identity of a Rajput.

Also, stating obvious facts does not make it a "Hindu" POV or a "Hindutva" POV; an apple is an apple no matter who holds it. Persisting in such derisory attacks is weak and cowardly, and shows bad faith.

61.247.244.170 19:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu[reply]

Let’s not diverge from the issue :- Sisodia the outlaw.

Raja, I saw your post in which you tried to introduce one more twist in the story by bringing in the Rajasthani vs. Punjabi issue. It won’t achieve anything other than filling in loads of more talk pages. It is simply a non-issue. A bunch of Rajput clans in India live outside Rajasthan (like Dogras in Jammu, Bundelas in UP/MP etc. etc.) and nobody doubts their authenticity of Rajput status. For your kind information, both the Rajput prime ministers of India (VP Singh and Chandrashekhar) were from outside of Rajasthan, and nobody has ever questioned their Rajput status.

But they are NOT Punjabi Rajputs either. Essentially YES we are all Rajputs, but regional variances create an undeniable difference in cultural practices, ethnicity somewhat and also even changes in Faith which HAS indeed happened in Punjab. I dont think you can find a single Punjabi Raja wanting to go back to Rajastan, his 'supposed' motherland. All your PM's are one thing, even the Bhutto's (our old PM's) have ancestrally royal blood I believe and there customs are quite distinct from Rajasthanis for sure. - Raja


Clueless Raja yet again trying to stretch the truth. ALL RAJPUTS OF INDIA ARE SAME/IDENTICAL.NO ONEOF THEM IS MUSLIM AND THEY ARE HAPPY WHERE THEY LIVE. WHETHER IT IS BIHAR/UP/RAJASTHAN/PUNJAB/JAMMU/HIMACHAL/MP OR ANY OTHER STATE. NO CULTURLAL DIFFERENCE. THEY CELEBRATE SAME FESTIVALS/WORSHIP SAME KULADEVI AND KULDEVA BASED ON IF THEY ARE RATHORE,SISODIA ETC/ MARRY THERE CHILDREN SIMILARLY/ AND REST OF THE CULTURAL NUANCES ARE IDENTICAL ALSO. WP allows clueless to say crap which they have no idea about. And I am warning you about dragging Krishna/Indra and Arjuna into this discussion. Shivraj Singh 04:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
O dear. So many different opinions. Let's review them, then:
  1. Shivraj, Wikipedia editor: "ALL RAJPUTS OF INDIA ARE SAME/IDENTICAL. WP allows clueless to say crap"
  2. DPSingh, Wikipedia editor: "You are talking out of your arse, whiteboy, we tell the truth and everyone agrees with us."
  3. Kasturi (2002) ISBN 01956-5787-x : most lineages subscribed to multiple identities, which overlapped and coalesced, working against an absolute definition imposed from above. Although official analyses perveived the flexibility of these hierarchies in the face of overwhelming evidence, they seldom recognized the historical circumstances shaping Rajput identities. Lineages were linked to different networks, both sacred and profane. Branches on a stratified lineage could be either Hindu or Muslim.
Which is the most quotable of these? Very difficult choice, indeed. I think I will believe the Singhs, because they are two, while Kasturi is all alone. dab (ᛏ) 09:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Therefore, let’s not diverge from the core issue, which really is that Rajput status, which is so inextricably tied to right lineage AND right religion AND right character traits, can be accorded to Muslims or not. So far, no convincing case has been made from Muslim side.

-- sisodia the outlaw.

If it's character traits, then Im sorry but but there is a serious lack of decency from your side towards admins and controbutors who have been taking out personal time to aid our page. I know you guys have strong opinions but please be more civil here. BTW the lineage based issue has been resolved on archived pages already. i.e. the word itself (Raj putra...son of a royal) affirms this. If the title was 'Hindu/dharma Raja putrra' then you'd have some credibility, but it doesn't. We dont have an overly romanticised view of being Rajputs, just a realistic pride which is seperated from myth. In fact if we went by that, then technically my ancestor Arjun was a son of Indra, the king of the Gods. That made Arjun Pandav a demi God. That makes me part demi God! Do you see the point here now? - Raja
A few weeks ago Arjuna was not a God for you and now he is. A few weeks ago you were saying he married his own sister. You have been trashing Hindu Gods and you will hear criticism of your prophets if you do not cease to talk about them in a wanton and ignorant fashion right now. Shivraj Singh 04:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surya,

Being Rajput is not a religious matter. Also Hindu dharam is not a definitive religion. It has evolved over time and in the process has adopted many other religions and practices. It is a long debate and I do not want to indulge into it. What matters is that there is no historical evidence, found in any credible source that shows the term Rajput being a religious one. For that note, Krishan Jee was not a follower of Hindu dharam. He is known to be the destructor of the statue of Indra.

Someone has mentioned that Rajputs are sons of Sun, Moon and Fire. I hope he will be able to explain then how come the Sun and Moon never dies where as all of their Rajput ancestors are dead and similarly how come a Rajput born out of "Fire" does not die while taking a bath? Isn't it the time to seperate the myth from the fact?

For the comment regarding Ibbetson, why read some part of it and not the other? Didn't my dear friend read the comments about Muslim Rajputs in that book? Also do you want me to qoute the name of Famous Rajputs who did widow marriages?

Sisodia,

I don't know what do you call convincing. Can you please bring up a neutral historical source saying that Muslims cannot be Rajput?

خرم Khurram 23:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram, Why do you beleive kuran is true? Do u have any evidence? Prove it. Also keep away from discussing Krishna and Indra when you have no idea about hinduism.
Lastly why does it take 100 messages to register a simple thing:
A) IBBETSON HAS MENTIONED RAJPUTS PRACTICING WIDOW REMARRIAGE CEASED TO BE RAJPUTS.
B) HE ASLO MENTIONED THAT SOME PEOPLE IN THE CENSUS SURVEY CLAIMED THAT THEY ARE RAJPUTS AND MUSLIM. ONE MORE TIME IN A CENSUS ANYONE IS FREE TO CLAIM ANYTHING JUST LIKE HERE RIGHT NOW YOU GUYS ARE DOING. YOUR CLAIMS ARE NOT ACCEPTED BY ANYONE.
Write all this on a sticky and post it somewhere so you can read it whenever you feel like posting on this topic. ONE MORE THING. UNDERSTAND STATISTICS. GAURWA CEASED TO BE RAJPUTS BECAUSE MAJORITY OF THEM STARTED PRACTICING KAREWA. 1,2 or 10 instances are exception to the rule AND DO NOT MATTER. Shivraj Singh 04:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but we've seen your comment about this dozens of times by now. Nobody is objecting, afaics, so put it in the article. Just because Ibbetson said something doesn't mean it is the final word of the matter, even from Ibbetson himself, but please do quote Ibbetson on this so we won't have to read this on talk every other day. "Your claims are not accepted by anyone" is not a valid conclusion from the Ibbetson btw. dab (ᛏ) 08:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denzil Ibbetson

Denzil Ibbetson, Tribes and Castes of Punjab and NWFP (1892) ISBN 8120605055

Ibbestson appears to be a citable source that is acceptable to everyone concerned. Shall we start by using his reference in the article? The inference, however, should clearly mention what he captured as a fact, what were the references that he cited for those facts, and what is his (Ibbestson's) own understanding of it.

Here, please be aware: It is very important in citing any source that the editor on WP puts only the citation, and not the editor's own self interpretation entwined within it. This is applicable for any source of material or references for this article as per NPOV policy applicable here. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 09:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why has the precious Ibbetson quote not been inserted weeks ago? I do get the impression people are here for the abuse and the reverting, not for the article itself. There are plenty of online fora intended to be hosting flamewars. WP is not one of them. dab (ᛏ) 10:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see Ibbetson is mentioned under the references, and so assume that something was mentioned. Was his citation lost during (almost daily) reverts? --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 11:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ibbetson and reason for my latest revert to Miljoshi

Ibbetson's statement is common knowledge. i.e you don't quote from books that sun shines and gives light, that 2+2=4.

Strange I find no one wants to analyse the facts from Ibbetson anymore. i.e if muslim side's sole argument is Ibbetson and I*son goes on to say that by violating condition A hindu rajputs ceased to be rajputs, then if a group violates condition A AND condition B AND condition C.... then how can they be rajputs? Bring some reason to the table if impasse needs to be broken.

I did suggest that discussion should take place on two lines: 1 what people agree on. 2 what they do not. Wholesole reverts suggest nothing is agreed on.

--DPSingh 11:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would beg to differ on the common knowledge point, DPSingji. In the sense that, if a source is "common knowledge" wrt its acceptability and recognition, it could fall under Reliable sources. And should be surely used in the interest of the article! Other example being Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is one of the foremost authority in the encyclopaedic realm (don't we all agree?), and can be termed as a reliable source.
Having said that, I appreciate your objection to reverts. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 11:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No dispute. Question: how do you reason when these buggers do not want to analyze Ibbetson any more? Do you agree with what I have posted from Ibbetson on Gaurwa rajputs and how it relates to Muslims and there claims? --DPSingh 11:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand based on the recent comments from Raja and then from dab as well, I gather Ibbetson is recommended. I think we should be able to reach an agreement for a "bilateral" citation. --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 12:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the book, except that it is quoteable, so quote it, and see if people add other quotes who object to Ibbetson. dab (ᛏ) 13:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
re: Question: how do you reason when these buggers do not want to analyze Ibbetson any more? Let me draw your attention to WP:NPA. FireFox 13:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Firefox I read NPA. Here is a cut and paste from thesaurus. This was not meant as an insult just common parlance.

Main Entry: lad Part of Speech: noun Definition: man Synonyms: boy, bub, buddy, bugger, chap, chicken, child, fellow, guy, half-pint, juvenile, kid, kiddo, little shaver, punk, runt, schoolboy, shaver, son, stripling, tad, youngster, youth --DPSingh 13:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cute, a little sophist. We could do with more sophistry and less shouting around here. It will only be a small further step from sophistry to rhetorical point-scoring, and maybe one further to an actual good-faith discussion. dab (ᛏ) 13:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

How does the RFC process conclude? Can anyone shed light? --DPSingh 12:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, even though you failed to properly format the rfc (why is there no "administrative powers abused" section? why is the "applicable policies" section empty?), and in spite of the "don't feed the trolls" maxim adhered to by many wikipedians, some people commented. You got your motley crew of single-topic trolls endorsing it, while several of the best respected editors around here endorsed my description of "nationalist fanatics". So you can either accept this outcome, or you can proceed to WP:RfAr. I have no doubt that if you do, you will be banned from editing Rajput related articles for a lengthy period of time. dab (ᛏ) 13:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I see the respected list where all who have helped you revert articles in the past are supporting you and so are bunch of people from this talk page. Not surprising shall we say. What about the outside view?

Also Firefox If I do not do anything more to that RFC does it just sit there or is there a process by which it gets filtered up? --DPSingh 13:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

one editor said I should consider myself held to higher standards than the average editor. While my standard is certainly far above that of trolls, I do accept that I should not have called you "clown" or "incompetent", no matter what. I stand by my description of certain edits as trollish, nationalist, uneducated, and of the quality of sulking 12 year olds, of course. I do not know if you are really too incompetent to cite a book, or if you just chose not to show your competence. My comments should refer to your edits alone, not to you as a person, since I have never met you (nor entertain any interest to). Your online behaviour is terrible. You may be a nice person, I don't know. I accept this criticism, and reassert my dedication to combatting incivil, biased and poorly formatted edits. dab (ᛏ) 13:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Firefox ban Bachman for racial slurs against ALL Indians

you don't want to be an admin?? You are one of the most saintly Wikipedians I know, with seemingly infinite patience, and great social skills. I can stick around on Rajput, but I felt let down, people on AN told me simply "don't feed the trolls". These are not simply trolls in the narrow sense, they do not pretend to be clueless brutes, it is difficult to believe, but I think they are fully serious. It is pointless to waste time with them, because even if you get them to listen to sense, there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for babysitting them, Wikipedia is not for them. Seeing the state of things, I was prepared to run a tight ship, block for PAs and reverts, which of course resulted in this "RfC" (where nobody bothered to comment) and now FireFox says he considers me "involved". Involved with protecting policy, yes, but I couldn't care less about the topic itself. So unless I get some community backup, I cannot speak the only language these people understand. dab (ᛏ) 09:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

just post the diff, and post it to my rfc. This is Talk:Rajput. I am not a Rajput, so why do you think it necessary to discuss me here? Man, Indians have written me emails to apologize for your behaviour. Unnecessarily, since I am under no misconception of you being in any way a showpiece of this great nation. dab (ᛏ) 17:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miljoshi: I have reverted the rajput page

Reason is muslim jihadi POV is not gonna fly. I welcome discussion on points of this page and I will give each argument made its due weight.

--DPSingh 13:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted again, to what I regard as a more neutral version, and the one that's improving. I'm not a Muslim and I'm not a jihadi. I do have training in social science and history, however, and IMHO, the neutral version does a better job of presenting the academic view. Zora 18:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further protection

Although you may be trying to justify your reverts, that is all you are doing in the majority, reverting. I'm not saying every single edit from every single editor is a revert, but most are. So, I have protected the page and from now on, you may rebuild the article at Rajput/temp and nowhere else. You may discuss changes at Talk:Rajput/temp or here, but until the dispute has been resolved, this page will not be unprotected. FireFox 18:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The respective temp pages have been initiated: --rgds. Miljoshi | talk 09:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Khurram: > Being Rajput is not a religious matter.

It most certainly is, and you know it too!, else you wouldn't be stressing for a muslim recognition of rajputs. If its only your pride in "ancestry" that mattered, like raja says, then the term "Hindu"-Rajputs shouldn't bother you because, its based on THAT HINDU DHARM ONLY, you can claim any PRIDE today, because it was that Dharm that shaped the Rajputs! Eat that.

Also, even Kasturi who is cited here shows rajputs were stratified according to religion into two groups - which implies religious significance.

Its bad manners and bad faith when exceptions try to lord over the rules. Rule is vedic hinduism is deeply tied with Rajput ethos and identity. And I don't need any books to quote that, and I don't "have to be" a Hindu or a Hindutva to say that.


> Also Hindu dharam is not a definitive religion. It has evolved over time and in the process has adopted many other religions and practices.

What nonsense! Dharm figures in Hindu heritage with an unbroken continuity right from its first mention in the RV 3.17, then 10.20, then 10.170, etc. and its "precisely because" Dharm was "always there", Hinduism was "able to adopt" and carry other similar-veined streams within it. And because it continues to be there, these other beliefs are sustained and were sustainable as Hinduism. Something Islam cannot say for itself!


> It is a long debate

There's no debate; it would take more than your flimsy statement as "Hinduism is not a definitive religion" to even provoke one. So, now not only is it the Rajput issue, but now you want to re-define Hinduism itself to your convenience? You think you can? I dare you to try.


> and I do not want to indulge into it.

Then why bring it up?


> What matters is that there is no historical evidence, found in any credible source that shows the term Rajput being a religious one.

Already stated.

Religion is from re-ligare; it means - "that which binds us back to our essence". (A Credible source: Any etymological dictionary)

The essence of a Rajput is his Virya/Kshatriya-ness. (A Credible source: Tod's annals)

The essence of a Kshatriya is his (Kshatriya-)Dharm. (A Credible Source: Bhagavad Gita)

The essence of Kshatriya-Dharm is to uphold and defend Dharm as a whole. (A Credible source: Manu Smriti)

The essence of Dharm is the very foundation of Vedic Bharath. (A Credible Source: Rig Veda)

You can neither refute, nor deny any of that.

And I already stated, our Vedic ancestors settled this question once and for all; a-vratas and a-yajvanahs (those who do not offer sacrifices and come under the same covenant of wor-ship), they are not Kin.

Meaning, if one has strayed from the path of this common covenant of religious oath, even if they were "one of us" before, they are no longer our kin now. There are no Rajput Muslims and there cannot be. Either one is Rajput (and a fake-muslim, i.e. a muslim in name only) or is a (fake Rajput, a Rajput in name only) and a true Muslim.


> For that note, Krishan Jee was not a follower of Hindu dharam. He is known to be the destructor of the statue of Indra.

Funny. And the whole of Mahabharath has Krishan Jee being Netr to Indra (in the form of his son Arjuna) and helping him out... They say, half-baked knowledge is far more dangerous than ignorance. You should watch yourself.


> Someone has mentioned that Rajputs are sons of Sun, Moon and Fire.

To whom you haven't bothered to give a decent reply.


> I hope he will be able to explain then how come the Sun and Moon never dies where as all of their Rajput ancestors are dead and similarly how come a Rajput born out of "Fire" does not die while taking a bath?

"Life cannot slay. Life is not slain!" [Krishan Jee, Bhagavad Gita]

That's why.


> Isn't it the time to seperate the myth from the fact?

I agree. Like...

Myth: Muslim Rajput

Fact: Muslim or Rajput

Raja: > BTW the lineage based issue has been resolved on archived pages already.

You wish!


> i.e. the word itself (Raj putra...son of a royal) affirms this. If the title was 'Hindu/dharma Raja putrra' then you'd have some credibility, but it doesn't.

LOL!, for your information, the very word Raj itself comes with a religious significance of Dharm, lol :


"Most scholars today assume these words for 'king, lord, god' are related to the Hittite verb has-/hass- 'beget, engender, produce', from *ho/ans-. Ferdinand Sommer as early as 1922 noted the parallelism of Hittite has-/hass- 'engender' beside hassu-'ing' from a single root, and the family of English kin etc. beside the family of English king (Getmanic *kuningaz) from another single IE root *genh-, also meaning 'engender'. The ruler was looked upon as the symbolic generator of his subjects; the notion is still with us in the metaphor 'father of his country', translating the even clearer Latin figure pater patriae.

Other IE words for 'king' make reference to other semantic aspects of royalty and kingship. The old root noun *hreg- is found only in the extreme west (Latin rex, Irish ri) and extreme east (Vedic raj-, Avestan berezi-raz- 'ruling on high'). The noun clearly belongs with Greek orego 'stretch out', Latin rego 'rule', Vedic raj- 'stretch out straight', and a whole set of forms built on the metaphor 'straight, right' and 'rule, ruler, regulate'. The Old Avestan derivative razare is variously translated as 'ordinance' (Bartholomae), 'order' (Kellens), even 'prayer' (Humbach-Elfenbein-Skjaervo).

We may observe yet another metaphor for guidance or governance in Y.50.6 '(we should instruct Zarathustra) to serve as charioteer of my ordinance/prayer'. The metaphor of the ruler as driver, charioteer recurs in the Old Irish text Audacht Morainn 22 and frequently in the Rigveda. ...The designation of the reins rests squarely on a metaphor: the "reins" are the "rulers". It is just the inverse of the metaphor which calls the ruler "charioteer", "helmsman"." [Watkins, I.E. Poetics]


Not only do King and God share the same root, lol, but,

Vedic raj - "to strech out"

Vedic yaj - sacrifice; "stretches out and extends itself" [Rao, The Vedic Experience]


Meaning, the concept of Yajna is already implicit in the word Raj, and therefore Rajput.

Religion is, like I said, i n t i m a t e l y connected with Rajput.


And if that weren't enough;


Rajputra is not only Raj-putra, but also Rajya-putra - Son of his Nation. Therefore, he is not only heir and protector merely to his father-king's values and family beliefs, but he is "heir to" and "protector of" the Belief of his Nation. And that Belief is Dharm.


> We dont have an overly romanticised view of being Rajputs, just a realistic pride which is seperated from myth. In fact if we went by that, then technically my ancestor Arjun was a son of Indra, the king of the Gods. That made Arjun Pandav a demi God. That makes me part demi God!

Fantastic! Allah should in about 5 seconds, in anytime be pronouncing you a Heretic sinner for even "technically" tracing your ancestry to Indra - ! Lets all attend this decoronation... Meanwhile, if you feel real pride, then, I suppose, that very much includes, real pride for your muslim brothers beings slaughtered at the hands of these Rajputs. If you still have real pride after that, then you are not a true Muslim. 61.247.244.233 19:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu[reply]

I dont have pride in any of your ancestors suryabhandar, I have it in mine. The Hindu and Muslim ones, because both fought stubborn oppressors everytime and won effectively. But I dont think youre very happy about your ancestors being colonialised by the Mughals and then the British leige lords. If you are then that's a strange pride ;) - Raja


Ok, first of all, any person who read what I put up would have known (if they can erd english properly) what I stated. I am a son of Arjun. You clearly aren't, so will never have the affinity for him that I do, my blood tie goes one step beyond your religious pride in him, which incidentally I DO RESPECT. I am not Hindu, correct. But Shiv for some strange ill infomed reason tried to state that Arjun was not a first cousin to Krishna and they were just friends, which is historically incorrect as Arjun married Subhadra who was Krishna's sister and she gave him Abhimanyu, so you should get your facts ON YOUR OWN RELIGION right before challenging mine(click here Arjuna if you dont believe me... :) ). I EVEN GAVE LINKS TO HIM TO CLEAR IT UP, but he is sadly so illiterate to understand it then, misinterpret it even TODAY. I dont believe Arjun was a God, you may do, and I respect that. How this is provoking anything against 'Prophets' or my 'Muslim brothers' when I have said nothing gainst your 'Gods' r your 'Hindu brothers' is beyond my understanding. I think Dab maybe true in calling you 12yr old trolls.

But anyway, no there is a massive difference in Rajputs, this page proves it. We are not anti Hindu but you are very much against us, which is NOT helping the article. Can we listen to the admins FOR A CHANGE, STOP the mudslinging and get on with this article? Each side stating their side in the article so the reader can have an informed view of our backgrounds? Is that not fair and concilliatory? Raja

_______________________________________________________________


Vraja:> I dont have pride in any of your ancestors suryabhandar, I have it in mine. The Hindu and Muslim ones, because both fought stubborn oppressors everytime and won effectively.

Honoured to be invoked by the name of Sugreev, even from your bovine-mouth vraja, if not divine, lol; and I guess, what you call pride is really merely only an appreciation, when a socio-religious current does not resonate with you. And then you can lay back, chew cud, and praise both Hindu and Muslim ancestors, with no hang-ups of thinking to whom you've sworn what to, unlike a real Rajput Kshatriya.


> But I dont think youre very happy about your ancestors being colonialised by the Mughals and then the British leige lords. If you are then that's a strange pride

Bovine and Blind! When did I claim any pride based on mere ancestry!


> We are not anti Hindu but you are very much against us, which is NOT helping the article.

I speak for myself; and no, my posts have never been against Muslims.

I have always been straightforward and my point always clear:

Objectively speaking, if you are a Rajput, you cannot be a true Muslim. That goes for your "Muslim Rajput" ancestors as well. Its not I, but the Book you owe allegiance to, says so. Take it up with Him, and don't mess with the article here.


61.247.244.233 21:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Suryabandhu[reply]


temp page or no temp page, the "Muslim question" needs to be resolved, otherwise there will be no progress. We have two camps, the "Hindus only" camp, and the "Muslims too" camp. Notwithstanding any amount of repetition that the "Hindus only" view is the only "objective" one, cited sources will be the only way to decide what will be in the article. From what I gather, we have:
  • on the "Hindus only" side, we have Ibbetson who says something of 19th century Rajputs losing their Rajput status by allowing widow remarriage
  • on the "Muslims too" side, Kasturi, who says that "Rajput identities" are multi layered, and may also include Muslim components.
I have seen no quote addressing the issue directly, no quote discussing a present-day controversy, and no quote making the "objectively, Hindus only" claim (what is "objective" here? Rajput descent is just a claim, on either side). Suryabandhu, you have been much more reasonable than most of the "Hindus only" camp, but you need to understand that as long as we have no better references, there is no reason not to allow discussion of Muslims who claim Rajput lineages here. We do not even have a source stating that this is controversial. If no improvement in debate culture, sticking to sources rather than repeated assertions of "objectivity" emerges here, I will ask for arbitration on this article. I will not ask for arbitration against specific users, but I will ask the arbitration committee to impose probations or bans on involved editors as they see fit, judging from their past behaviour. dab (ᛏ) 10:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion is the mother of all evil. One more try. Kasturi's book depicts rajputs converted to Islam. THIS IS A FACT. These converts till today claim they are rajputs . Nobody accepts that claim. But no fight breaks out over this on daily basis in India.
Ibbetson describes loosing of rajput status. He is not the first to do so. This "loosing" is related to the breaking of laws that govern Indian society and are different for different group. Once a person/group is out they cannot comeback in. Think of one way functions like passwd in unix.

GOING FORWARD

Wikipedia is searchable. If a person types word rajput in search box two pages can pop up. rajput and muslim rajput. User is free to click on any one they wish. All arguments from all angles has taken place. It is like religion either you believe it or not. Best solution is having two pages and a link from the rajput page to the page of converted. This way each group operates in there own unvierse. Acrimony will end. Shivraj Singh 11:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, if thast what it takes to resolve the issue here then I'm all for it. Arbitration maybe the only route here.--Raja 14:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion. Instead of main Rajput page providing a link to the alleged "Muslim Rajput" page, let it be the other way round. Parent page should not have onus of tracking and accomodating all the converts. Let the converts' page refer to the main Rajput page to signify their understanding of their origins.

-- sisodia.

I dont agree. I think that if the so called 'parent page' were not to refer to other clans, other faith Rajputs, then that would defeat the object of 'linking'. --Raja 22:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clans

Brothers I have created small stubs for each of these clans. Some have more info then the others. Sisodia can you add more sisodiya gotra/shakha and also expand on them? Suryabandhu would you like to expand on Pundir kula? SS/Shonan what would you like to focus on? Digvijay can you add some more chauhan gotra and see if you like Deora page?

Also if you have more info on any other shakha/gotra have a go at it.

Does anyone know if Sumrendra is around?

Shivraj Singh 20:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shivraj, Here is info on Sisodias

Vansh Suryavansh

Kul (clan) Guhilot

Shakha Sisodia

Khamp/Gotra Chandawat, Ranawat, Shaktawat, Sarangdevot, Sangawat, Chandrawat, Kshemawat, Suhawat, Ahariya.

Notes:

(1) Sangawats are sometimes considered a division of Chandawat and sometimes a separate gotra.

(2) The Royal House of Mewar belongs to the Ranawat gotra.

-- sisodia

I dont have pride in any of your ancestors suryabhandar, I have it in mine. The Hindu and Muslim ones, because both fought stubborn oppressors everytime and won effectively. But I dont think youre very happy about your ancestors being colonialised by the Mughals and then the British leige lords. If you are then that's a strange pride ;) - Raja


Raja....If You would be so kind enough to explain to me these points please.....

1) Why do most Pakis think that only India and hindus were ruled by the british ? ?

2) that the area of geographical space known today as Pakistan and paki muslims were always an independent force since muhammed's time ? Do they teach you that in Pakistan's schools?

3)You wrote-->Ok, first of all, any person who read what I put up would have known (if they can erd english properly) what I stated. I am a son of Arjun. You clearly aren't, so will never have the affinity for him that I do, my blood tie goes one step beyond your religious pride in him, which incidentally I DO RESPECT. I am not Hindu, correct.- Raja

Im sorry but If ive read and understood correctly..If Not..kindly ignore this particular point


You said You are Arjun's son ?! ?! ?! ?! ?!

flabbergast-ingly yours 220.227.238.195 07:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


HEYYYY..LOOK WHAT I FOUND..HO HO HO ..

Captain Bingley, writing of the Rajputs, tells of the traditional valour of Rajput Warriors and rehearses some of the past glories of the old Company’s army; he recalls the story of the Queen’s own Rajputs (once the 31st) at Bhurtpore; remembers Nott’s praise for the ‘beautiful sepoy regiments’ when they first went to Kandahar. ‘Our troops carried the enemy’s position in gallant style; it was the finest ting I ever saw. Those 8,000 Afghans could not stand our 1200 men for an hour.”He goes on that the system......Rajputs, he continues, are soldiers by tradition and taught by their religion (Hinduism) to regard the profession of arms as their legitimate occupation.....they form the military caste which should hold its own and bear favourable comparison with the most warlike of the races now serving under our colours’."

PAGE.356, A Matter of Honour, Philip Mason,

In this book, as in others about the Indian soldiers who served under the Union Jack, references are made towards the fact that Hindu soldiers were loyal while the Muslims could not be trusted.. On page 365 of the above mentioned book, there is a reference to the martial spirit honour and loyalty of Sikhs, Rajputs and Gurkhas, but not of the Muslims.


Furthermore, many Muslims have started the tactics of claiming origin from Hindu martial groups, for example claiming such things as Muslim Rajputs or Muslim Gurkhas, these abominations neither exist nor are they accepted among the Rajputs and Gurkhas. Although, it is known that because of forced conversions, it is very likely that some Muslims may be the offspring of Rajputs and other groups converted to Islam, however it is also mentioned in many of these books that they no longer contained the quality, spirit or psyche and were inferior in all realms including their sense of honour. Thus, although they may claim descent for the Hindu, and Sikh, martial groups, they are longer fit to claim such honours or are they of the same calibre.


I sincerely hope that the British Government does not take up the practice of recruiting more Muslims into her forces. I hope they study their history once again.


"Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you."

Sir Ralph Turner (former officer in the 3rd Gurkha Rifles). Carved on the London memorial to the Gurkha soldier unveiled by Queen Elizabeth II on December 3, 1997

-Cheers

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009304.php

Take a bow ! SOn of Kurus !

220.227.238.195 07:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput&oldid=32746961"