This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should Gurjaras and Pratiharas be listed on this page? - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 all their decendants are found among modern day rajputs Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
See this highly Referenced reliable post by a historian from this website [1] Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Rajput dynasties and states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi user: Chariotrider555 , I saw that you reverted my edits on Rajput dynasties page, I had already mentioned in the edit that I am providing sources in the next edit, still you did not wait for me to add references and deleted my edit, I have already included both the view points as a conflict resolution by ravensfire, and added sources of esteemed historians like CV Vaidya, GH Ojha & Yogendra Mishra who lived and worked in India, unlike foreign authors who based their hypothesis without even visiting the contemporary sources, In historical discussions contemporary sources are valued much more than secondary sources, never mind I have added the references. This page is less about rajput origins and more about rajput dynasties, lets not make it a battle ground for that. Thanks and regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhojpal1234 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The article is about list of rajput dynasties that ruled this subcontinent, the view of authors can't be considered that Rajput identity came later, specially of Talbot as her assertion is flawed at first instance, she says Rajput identity came in 15th century, while we have contemporary evidences, concreted by historians like CV Vaidya and Yogendra Mishra. So either include their views or remove the following, as according to government of India, period of 6-12th century is considered Rajput period. The term "Rajput" has been used as an anachronistic designation for several Hindu dynasties that confronted the Ghaznavid and Ghurid invaders during the 11th and 12th centuries. Although the Rajput identity did not exist at this time, these lineages were classified as aristocratic Rajput clans in the later times. User: Ravensfire User:LukeEmily (Link of the Union Public service Commision of India Notes on Rajput period: https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/the-rajputs/)
Only one of our sources knows the hindu sahis as Brahmanas and he's the famous sanskritist Alberuni ,who being a contemporary of jayapala ,Anandapala, trilochanapala and bhimpala cannot be expected to be ignorant of the real situation .but the evidence against this is so vast that it cannot be ignored and rejected outright.according to this set of evidence which we now present in the following lines the hindus sahis were Kshatriyas or Rajputs[2]
A)The main Indian to promote foreign origins was Bhandarkar(1911), whom Vaidya criticized for his "pickwickian method"(1924, 35) while nonetheless accepting an "Aryan invasion" himself to explain the solar and lunar "races" as "two hordes of Aryan invaders" whole "colonization" of India occured at different times(7, 276). For Vaidya, Gujars "are not foreigners but are anthropometrically Aryans with the best Aryan noses and are historically the Vaisyas."
B)These author's[Singh, Vaidya] motives for affirming, in singh's words, "an unbroken continuity of marital ideals from the Ramayana and Mahabharatha down to the present age and therefor the Rajput age", and genuine solar origins behind fabricated fire origins are transparently anticolonialistic and nationalist.
C)441.But the affinities[mentioned by vaidya] do not point to an unbroken continuity between an ancient "epic period" in the Vedic past(3500-3000 BC according to Vaidya) and the great Rajput tradition that begins in sixteenth century Rajasthan. Rather, they raise the question of similaries between the epics (and especially the Mahabharata's) allusions to vedic vratya warbands and lifestyles of earlier medieval "low status Rajput" clans.
D)3.In thinking of the historical relation between classical epics and Rajput culture, I have found C.V.Vaidya a clever pathfinder. Although his historiography is often hopeless
E)Attempts to trace Agnivamsha Rajputs directly from Vedic and epic sources (e.g Vaidya 1924, 7;Asopa 1972,1976,21-24) are unconvincing, and Asopa's epic references are either far-fetched and unintelligible.
LukeEmily what does him believing in this aryan invasion or whatever has to do with this discussion Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I think the edits[3] done by that sockpuppet are fairly good citing many prominent historians of india so can I add some of the material from it like the Rajput rising to prominence after Harsha we can also keep the other view point of the historians who believe term Rajput was anarchronologically to describe Kshatriya monarchies Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
It will make the article more neutral and resolve the dispute as both parties want to keep their edits Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
yes what's i was trying to say.
As both the parties dont contradict each other. And sources from both side are of high quality.
So can i add this statement with references from both sides and resolve this dispute.
"after death of Emperor Harsha in 647 A.D. The period between Seventh to Twelfth Century saw Rise of many tribes and clans from varied social backgrounds in India who dominated much of Northern india. these tribes and clans of varied social backgrounds were anachronisticaly described as "rajputs"."
Feel free to discuss anything more you want to add or improve. Thank you Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Weber however explained this downgrading of their status by the fact that they represented a threat to the cultural and intellectual monopoly of the Brahmans, as they[Kshatriyas] were also extremely cultured and educated in the art of administration. In about the eight century the Rajput thus began to perform the functions that had formerly belonged to the Kshatriya, assuming their social and economic position and substituting them as the new warrior class. Ancient illiterate merceneries, the Rajput did not represent a threat to the Brahmininc monopoly and were more inclined to accept the Brahmans' superiority, thus contributing to the so called Hindu restoration.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change This:
The term "Rajput" has been used as an anachronistic designation for several Hindu dynasties that confronted the Ghaznavid and Ghurid invaders during the 11th and 12th centuries. Although the Rajput identity did not exist at this time, these lineages were classified as aristocratic Rajput clans in the later times.[1][2]
To That:
The term "Rajput" has been used as an anachronistic designation for several Hindu dynasties that ruled Indian subcontinennt since last 5000 years. Although the Rajput identity existed since vedic age (According to an ancient inscriptions found in India ,Link : https://jasbirjammu.wordpress.com/), Later the word was used to distinguish the pure genetic clans (direct lineage) of Ancient vedic kshatriyas. DrSachinSharma (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
References
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ajaska7 (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Gamph was a small state of India, ruled by chudasama Rajputs.[1] There are 52 Estates of Chudasama Rajputs in the Dhandhuka area which all are the Bhayats of former Gamph state.
The estates are:
Gamph, Gorasu, Bhadiad, Kadipur, Dholera, Jaska, Pipli, Kharad, Sandhida, Bavalyari, Cher, Wadhela, Aniyari (Bhimji), Sangasar, Hebatpur, Tagdi, Polarpur, Zinzer, Vagad, Parabadi, Rojka, Kothadiya, Pipariya, Bahadi, Timbala, Shahpur, Devgana, Kamiala, Ambli, Fatehpur, Khamidana, Pipal, Akru, Unchadi, Malpara, Salasar, Bhalgamda, Ankevalia, Otaria, Panchi.
These Rajputs are descended from the old Rah Dynasty of Junagadh.[citation needed]
References
IP sock of Showbiz826 | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Hello Wikipedia community...I want to request a change here to thi article..This has been the case with this article in last 2 months where several disruption occurs by many annonymous and regular users.. However, recently a user Chariotrider 555 removed a large chunk of date on this article which was verified by admin Regentspark before addding ECP protection..They cleverly omitted 10 high quality sources and revert it back to their preffered version as can be seen 'here' they also had a tendency to remove large chunk of content as can be seen 'here' again which is a negative way...,,, I request anyone with ECP protection to move back the page to 'these revision edited by RegentsPark it contained 10 scholary source about early origin of Rajputs... also the edit war was started on 5 September as can be seen 'here' therefore it can be reverted to this version by 'verified by admin Meno25' too But please restore this large chunk content which is removed by this persistent vandal. Thank you. 103.206.51.172 (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC) 103.206.51.172 (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
|
LukeEmily I couldnt finish the edit summary and button was pressed, anyway here it is, as I was saying, I am fully aware of the discussion at talk page of Prithviraj Chauhan, I myself contributed to it and it might be confusing for you but I am well aware of the subject. The discussion was neither concluded nor fully related to the subject at hand. If you wish to do such a major change on this page, please discuss here beforehand before engaging in an edit war.Sajaypal007 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
No one is contesting the fact that Prithviraj Chauhan has been described as a Rajput by later writers (including modern historians): we are talking about the nuance that he did not identify as a "Rajput", and that word did not exist as the identity of a social/ethic/caste group during his lifetime. utcurschand from Alivardi.
However, I think it's worth noting that the question here isn't whether a Rajput identity existed at that point, but rather whether what we now consider to be the Rajput identity existed and what it meant. The text referenced in the article, The Last Hindu Emperor · Prithviraj Chauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000 by Cynthia Talbot, cited a number of reputable historians when discussing this issue:I believe the Rāso contributed to the consolidation of an aristocratic Rajput identity beginning in the late sixteenth century. What the term Rajput meant prior to the Mughal period is a contentious issue, for scholars disagree about how far back we can trace the existence of the Rajputs as a community… Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya suggests that rājaputra was applied to a larger group of high-ranking men who also bore titles such as rāuta, rāvala, and rānaka… In contrast, Michael Bednar's examination of inscriptions from western and central India during the eleventh through fourteenth centuries indicates that thakkura, rāuta, and rājaputra were titles of rank that generally denoted official positions and were often not passed on from father to son. Chattopadhyaya may therefore, be somewhat premature in his assertion that Rajput identity existed in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries… Arguing in a different vein than Chattopadhyaya, Dirk H. A. Kolff claims that the label Rajput had previously denoted an open status identity that any successful warrior could acquire. During the Mughal period, however, the Rajputs closed ranks to form an aristocratic class whose membership was strictly circumscribed by birth… In any case, Rajput was not a term that figured in Indo-Persian texts prior to the sixteenth century, according to Peter Jackson, supporting the view that there was some change in the meaning of the term… As Rajput chiefs were increasingly co-opted into the Mughal system, a sharper line was drawn between them and the other, less elite, fighting men of India. One way of doing this was through acknowledging the kshatriya status of Rajputs… The repeated conflation of Rajput with kshatriya hat can be witnessed in Prthvīrāj Rāso is thus part of a larger early modern trend of stressing the elite nature of Rajputs. I think the analogy with India is not correct. The difference is that no one knows for sure what castes or communities these early clans belonged to. For India, we know that despite what they are called they have heritage of the Indian subcontinent. These early so called Rajput clans could have been Jat, Gurjar or some community that does not even exist today. We don't know. Prior to the Mughals the Rajput identity existed but they were mercenaries who called themselves Rajputs. Not clans as in today's sense. What the sources are saying is that the Hindu clans of unknown heritage were anachronistically designated Rajputs (even by historians). That is precisely why Bayly writes that their descendants may not be the Rajputs of the Mughal era because of the fabrication of genealogy. Rajputs literally worshipped Akbar, leading to alliances and it was during Akbar's time that lot of Rajputization happened in Orissa(as one example). During the Muslim era, a lot of Pastoral/peasant groups due to political situation became Rajputs. They had to explain their origin by dismissing the pastoral origins so the only way was to fabricate it linking it to older dynasties. Thus, the older dynasties had to be declared rajput dynasties. This is what multiple sources seem to imply. It does not matter to me personally whether they were Rajput or not or when the Rajput clans originated(16th century or 6th century). My concern is only with the inconsistency of this page and the Rajput page. We should keep them consistent or it will be confusing to readers. You have read [[4]] but I am linking it for the benefit of others.LukeEmily (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Richard Eaton 2019, p. 87, [1]In Gujarat, as in Rajasthan, genealogy proved essential for making such claims. To this end, local bards composed ballads or chronicles that presented their patrons as idea warriors who protected Brahmins, cows and vassals, as opposed to the livestock herding chieftains that they actually were, or had once been. As people, who created and preserved the genealogies, local bards therefore played critical roles in brokering for their clients socio-cultural transitions to a claimed Rajput status. A similar thing was happening in the Thar desert region, where from the fourteenth century onwards mobile pastoral groups gradually evolved into landed, sedentary and agrarian clans. Once again, it was bards and poets, patronized by little kings, who transformed a clan's ancestors from celebrated cattle-herders or cattle-rustlers to celebrated protectors of cattle-herding communities. The difference was subtle but critical, since such revised narratives retained an echo of a pastoral nomadic past while repositioning a clan's dynastic founder from pastoralist to non-pastoralist. The term 'Rajput', in short, had become a prestigious title available for adoption by upwardly mobile clan in the process of becoming sedentary. By one mechanism or another, a process of 'Rajputization' occurred in new states that emerged from the turmoil following Timur's invasion in 1398, especially in Gujarat, Malwa and Rajasthan.LukeEmily (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Schwerin, Kerrin Griifin (2005). "The Cow-saving Muslim Saint: Elite and Folk Representations of a Tomb Cult in Oudh". In Hasan, Mushirul; Roy, Asim (eds.). Living Together Separately Cultural India in History and Politics. Oxford University Press. p. 182. ISBN 978-0-19-566921-3. Muslim sultans east of Delhi generally relied on intimate alliances with Rajput warlords with their Hindustani peasant infantry, recruited in the east (purab). Rajput chiefs served as brokers. 'Their [the sultan's] overriding interest in recruitment alliances and consensus with Rajput chiefs were expressed, ideologically, in the syncretist, conciliatory idiom that dominated their courts.'38 Rajput warriors converted to Islam without necessarily giving up their way of life. These pre-Mughal Rajputs were not the Rajputs of the seventeenth century Great Tradition but, rather, 'an open status group of warrior-ascetics in search of patronage and marriage'.39 Via a process of Rajputization, peasant castes (like Bhar and Ahir) of eastern Hindustan (purbiya) were integrated into the open status group of warrior ascetics, adopting Rajput values. The warrior hero's death in the battlefield represents the values of kingship.. Yes, I am aware of the cattle raids in Vedic literature but Alf Hiltebeitel has already commented on the Vedic Vratya warbands. As mentioned before, several scholarly editors like Utcursh, Trangabellum, Fowler&fowler have pointed out the anachronistic designation for clans. It really does not matter to me personally as long as wikipedia is consistent(7th or 16th century). But based on the sources the senior editors have pointed out (like Talbot) - anachronistic seems to be more appropriate. Is there any issue with the current version? All sources are present.LukeEmily (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@LukeEmily: Since that Ip is a sock, we should continue our discussion. As I was saying this is dynasty and states related page and no dynasty mentioned on the page can be said to be originated after 14th century.Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
However, the term "Rajput" has been used as an anachronistic designation for Hindu dynasties before the 16th century because the Rajput identity for a lineage did not exist before this time, and these lineages were classified as aristocratic Rajput clans in the later times. Thus, the term "Rajput" does not occur in Muslim sources before the 16th century and in the words of Susan Bayly : "The chiefs and warriors whom the Mughals came to honour as Rajput lords in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries may not even have been descendants of Rajasthan’s earlier pre-Mughal. The one in bold was added by Utcursch. The one with 10 sources (the para before this is not my addition). I have added only 2 lines that are shown in italics here - and I have added citations. What parts were you proposing to remove?LukeEmily (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The Rajputs rose to political prominence after the large empires of ancient India broke into smaller ones. The Rajputs became prominent in the early medieval period in about seventh century and dominated in regions now known as Rajasthan, Delhi, Haryana, Western Gangetic plains and Bundelkhand.This is the version that the numerous socks as well as you have added. It is not my addition on this page. Please check the history - someone copied it from the Rajput page. In fact, in Utcursch's version, there were only two lines on this page that mentioned anachonism.LukeEmily (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Sajaypal007 and LukeEmily: You are wrong...,,,the sources you added doesn not talk about Rajput designation being anchronistic infact several of them mentioned that Rajput term became more consistent sixteenth century onwards and this is very disputed as several or most well known scholar staged emergence of Rajput clans to seventh century itself...I can provide four more sources for the same but it will definately make this article looks terrible and would cause WP:Overkill for sure..
Just for the fact that you added on the article that Muslim chronicles doesn't refer to rulers as Rajput pre sixteenth century is also unproven....I am adding two sources which clearly mentioned twlevth cetury ruler Prithviraj Chauhan referred to as Rajput.
Here are these sources...
The current content added seems to push the second narrative more....This is a list article why not just present list and not all these things 106.78.51.224 (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The concern about incosistency is sonewhat correct but there is no reason to add any of these view point here as this is list not a origin article. 106.78.51.224 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Sajaypal007 and LukeEmily: Why you both are cleverly ignoring quality sources present by me which clearly mentioned that in Muslim annals term Rajput was used for 12th century ruler. Your notion of inconsistency is at best a poor cru because one content of Wikipedia can not be used as cover up for other. There are 11 sources all from reputed scholars about seventh century origin while this sources only mentioned that the structure became more rigid post Mughal era which is very disputed at best here is another source for early origin claim from Indrani Chatterjee established".[4] Another one from Burton Stein who explained on basis of Sanskrit inscription that The Rajput claim as a community were recorded in Sanskrit inscriptions that consituted as well as recorded in Rajasthan during the seventh century, when Rajputs begins to make themselves lords of various localities[5] Here is another one from Professor Peter Robb (2011) who explained that From around 1000 ce notable among these regional powers were various Rajput dynasties in the west and north[6]
As I said why not remove all these and mentions only list ??? Anyway Mr. Luke none of this editors oppose this content addition apart from you on this page. Rajputization is different thing all together. 106.66.40.135 (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
LukeEmily: "These early so called Rajput clans could have been Jat, Gurjar or some community that does not even exist today." Secondly as per wiki page of Jats, it is written they were in Sindh and started moving over to this part very late. I have observed that it is you who has edited the page "Rajputisation". Do you understand the whole concept what these writers are saying? It is not only for Rajput but looks like as editor your obsession is mostly with respect to one community. It also says that Jat, Gujars are those who attempted to change themselves but didn't succeeded. In similar manner they talk about Rajput clans as well like they formed their community based on it. So, when the other two attempted to try for social mobility and were not successful then how come these clans are related to them. And FYI, there are Rajput clan like Bhati who has been ruling over Jaisalmer since 10th century without break as mentioned on one of their page, not only this clan even the Gohil/ Guhila in Gujarat are older ones, similar case with many others. The are various sources, some of it shared above by the other editors also point to what I am saying here. All clans would not suddenly come into prominence in 16th century or 14th century. A lot of them existed before this period including Bhatis etc. Most of the writers point is that the clans were getting added or bunched together based on alignments till 16th century in case of Rajputs and they connected themselves to the Vedic God. Many like Burton Stein, Kolff, Kulke etc are not saying that these clans were not Rajput, Cynthia and some others etc are taking a different perspective but they have quoted the other writers viewpoint. The first set of writers like Kulke, Stein, Kolff have just talked about "the tight knitting for this community might have happened late" and if you read more into it, they make larger point that community/caste system was lax in those days which is applicable to all the communities. A number of writers have talked about other categories like Brahmins, Bhumihars, Jats, Ahirs etc in the similar manner, that these weren't fixed. So to cherry pick few lines to make an article of your own on Wikipedia is not the right way to present all these aspects to the readers.
Lastly, this is not related to the history of dynasties but matter of sociological debates/discussion by sociologists, a lot of it is based on speculation which the writers themselves cannot prove it. The question here is do we have to only present views of sociologists or those who are writers of history as well. I have removed your lines of highlighting only one Susan Bayly, same was not done for the other writers viewpoint. Pls add it on the community page "origin" , but regurgitating the same point on all the pages ( based on sociologist theories) looks like a case of malafide intention. RS6784 (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)is not canvassing and considered appropriate and editors on Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan have participated in this discussion. In many cases, I am simply quoting these editors. Anyway, as far as the topic is concerned my issue is this: (1)You mentioned you were going to look for some sources (that contradicted Talbot and Bednar). We can add them if you have them. (2)We need to be consistent across wikipedia. We cannot have this page contradicting the Rajput page (this page is only about clans not the term Rajput as applied to individuals). Either Rajput page needs to be fixed for clans or this page needs to be fixed. Personally, I agree with Utcursch, TB, Fowler &Fowler etc. based on the sources they have quoted.LukeEmily (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@LukeEmily, Sajaypal007, and RS6784: LukeEmily you are deliberately using other editors to garner the consensus and at same time arguing you don't have any interset in Rajput history 'MobileDiff/1057196563' On other note you are consistently poking Utcursch as a mean to win the consensus despite the fact that he himself omitted Although Rajput idenitity did not exist during his time bit from Prithviraja-III talk page which you are using as a scape answer in all your replies 'MobileDiff/1057196563' As for Fowler&fowler bit got a slap on his back by senior editor on that talk page 'Special:MobileDiff/1030061831' largely for dismissing the scholars they disagree with. Bednar's thesis used by Tablot's are not end all and be all especially on Rajput history that itself is very controversial and glorious in same manner. Most of the scholars prominent medievalists staged Rajput emergence as Early medieval phenomena and when their structure became rigid is entirely different thing. Just to let you know Peter Jackson who stated Rajput as an anachronism himself reffered to B.D Chattopadhyay work. (who said Rajput identity became hereditary 12th century onwards) Who really cares at end of the day about Wikipedia articles really as you state as it's leftiest bias is very well known. You are irritating in a sense that you avoid about 15 odd reliable historic sources from reputed scholars and sticking with the fact that there are no sources.
I am letting yourself to play with some more sources here are they:-
Here is from Eugenia Vanina who stated that
The first refrence to Rajputs and their clans in Sanskrit inscriptions were also made and recorded in seventh-eight centuries
.[7]
[8]By the sixth century AD, there are historical evidences of people calling themselves Rajput begins to settle in Indo-Gangetic Plain. Over the course of ten centuries they came to control land and people.AD
[9]In north India, dominant features of the period between seventh and twelvth centuries have been identified as the growing weakness of state; the growth of power of local landed elittes and their decentralising authority by aquiring greater administrative, economic and political roles, the decline of towns, the setback to trades, this period is also notable for rise of Rajputs. Both the term Rajput (Raja-putra) as name for caste and sense of unity in its components appears in northern Indian inscriptions of twelfth century, and must, therefore have evolved in preceding period
[10]In long stretch of historical time, group moves in and out of existence and group names changes very drastically. For example, the term Rajput aquired its modern meaning by the later half of twelfth century. In Harayna as the Tomaras, Chauhans and Sakas (ruling clans from medieval inscriptions), the earlier two have been recognised as Rajput dynasties and last being a refrence to the sultans
PS:- In any case you should also read Prof. Nandini Sinha Kapoor work about origin of Rajputs. Sometimes it requires months to establish a consensus in any way maintain civility. 42.105.138.231 (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
"The chiefs and warriors whom the Mughals came to honour as Rajput lords in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries may not even have been descendants of Rajasthan’s earlier pre-Mughal elites". Talbot is saying
"What the term Rajput meant prior to the Mughal period is a contentious issue, for scholars disagree about how far back we can trace the existence of the Rajputs as a community. and concurs with Kolff’s assertion that “since the late sixteenth century, something like a new Rajput Great Tradition emerged which could recognise little else than unilineal kin bodies as the elements of which genuine Rajput history ought to be made up" [.....] However, Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya suggests that rājaputra was applied to a larger group of high-ranking men who also bore titles such asrāuta, rāvala, and rānaka. His study of inscriptions primarily from Rajasthan led Chattopadhyaya to the opinion that "by the twelfth century the term rājaputra had come to acquire the later connotation of the term ‘Rajput’," who were associated with fortified settlements and the division of land among kin, among other features. Chattopadhyaya also believes that "an element of heredity" was involved in the transmission of the title by 1300 or thereabouts.In contrast, Michael Bednar’s examination of inscriptions from western and central India during the eleventh through fourteenth centuries indicates that thakkura, rāuta, and rājaputra were titles of rank that generally denoted official positions and were often not passed on from father to son. Chattopadhyaya may, therefore, be somewhat premature in his assertion that Rajput identity existed in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries, if one understands “Rajput” to designate a clan-based community with a distinctive warrior ethos, rather than a term denoting individual political rank.. For the Dirk H Kolff's book , can you list the page numbers? I may be able to get access the book. Also, please see Bednar's thesis that Talbot refers too [here. (note: I copied the quotes from the Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan made by other editors). Anyway, if any source disagrees with Talbot, we should add its view too
Please don't put words into my mouth. I never said if some source disagree with Talbot we should add that as well.. Did you not use the word "cherrypicking"? The opposite of cherrypicking is presenting all sides - WP:NPOV. Anyway, it does not matter. I will scratch out that line where I "put words in your mouth" - but my statement was in good faith. Is Dr.Talbot's view irrelevant to this page? If that is the case, we should discuss. Can you give a summary of the text you want on this page? Were the later Rajputs the descendants of the earlier clans(in that case it is simply a name change like "India" and is irrelevant)?LukeEmily (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
These clans even if we consider the point of meaning of Rajput in earlier times was different yet the clan remained the same. That was my original point that even if we consider name change clan was still called Rajput even during later times. Like how Mughals are still called mughals despite originally never been called mughals in their history.Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
A signal of a different kind came from the chandella dynasty. These kings narrated a complex origin myth liked to the Lunar line in their inscriptions but their origin was also associated with the Gond tribes of central India. It is said they initially worshipped a rock, Maniya Deo, installed in their earliest capital at Maloba. Through the processes of acquiring Rajput status and subscribing to Sanscritic culture, which involved devotion to Puranic deities[17]. I think we should probably need history experts to resolve conflicts.LukeEmily (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, Dr Dikshit has served as Head of Departement of "Ancient Indian History and Archaeology" in Lucknow University. He has also been Dean of Arts faculty at the same University. And he wrote specifically about Chandellas. He is best we have about Chandella history. And he himself analysed the Gond claim and discarded this quite old Colonial era claim. Most of the work of colonial British historians on castes were based on now discarded racist theories, this was similar case given by them without any logic or basis. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sajaypal007 and RS6784: Why you guys stopped discussion on this topic from last two months ? Current version doesn't seems too nuanced as it clearly favour second view that too by cherry picking sources. 2409:4051:2D8B:57DF:F84C:AD14:3B7E:E6E5 (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
References
As noted by Hasan Nizami is his work Tajul-Ma'asir, the In 1192, one of Mahmud's lieutenants and eventual successors, Muhammad of Ghur, defeated the chief opponent of the Muslim raiders, the Hindu Rajput Raja Prithvi Raj Chauhan, outside of his capital at Lolkat
"Minhaj us-Siraj's in his work about Ghurid dynasty; narrates the defeat of Prithviraja in Second battle of Tarain. He presents that The Rajput king who was riding an horse
The origin of Rajputs who dominated the history of northern India between from eigth to twelvth century ce has always been debated
The Rajputs rose to prominence after seventh century onwards and dominated in region of northern and north-western India. There is a significant controversy about their origin. However, there appears to be a fair consensus that they were drawn from miscellaneous castes , including brahmans, aboriginal tribesmen and foreigners who had settled in the country . Towards the end of twelfth centuries, a distinctive Rajput clan structure was established which attains a sense of heredity in its elements and stresses on blood purification
((cite book))
: line feed character in |quote=
at position 213 (help)
The Rajput claim as a community were recorded in Sanskrit inscriptions that consituted as well as recorded in Rajasthan during the seventh century, when Rajputs begins to make themselves lords of various localities
From around 1000 ce notable among these regional powers were various Rajput dynasties in the west and north
"By the period of seventh–eights centuries AD when the first references to the Rajput clans and their chieftains were made
"By the sixth century AD, there are historical evidences of people calling themselves Rajput begins to settle in Indo-Gangetic Plain. Over the course of ten centuries they came to control land and people
In north India, dominant features of the period between seventh and twelvth centuries have been identified as the growing weakness of state; the growth of power of local landed elittes and their decentralising authority by aquiring greater administrative, economic and political roles, the decline of towns, the setback to trades, this period is also notable for rise of Rajputs. Both the term Rajput (Raja-putra) as name for caste and sense of unity in its components appears in northern Indian inscriptions of twelfth century, and must, therefore have evolved in preceding period
But in long stretch of historical time, group moves in and out of existence and group names changes very drastically. For example, the term Rajput aquired its modern meaning by the later half of twelfth century. In Harayna as the Tomaras, Chauhans and Sakas (ruling clans from medieval inscriptions), the earlier two have been recognised as Rajput dynasties and last being a refrence to thr sultans
((cite book))
: |work=
ignored (help); Unknown parameter |volum=
ignored (help)
The term Rajput is a retrospective invention, as most of the martial literature of resistance to Turkish conquest dates only from the mid-fifteenth century onward. As Dirk Kolff has noted in his Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy: The Ethnohistory of the Military Labour Market in Hindustan, 1450-1850 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), the invention of "Rajput" identity can be dated to the sixteenth-century narratives of nostalgia for lost honor and territory.
As Dirk Kolff has argued, it was privileged, if not initially inspired, only in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by Mughal perceptions of Rajputs which, in a pre-form of orientalism, took patrilineal descent as the basis for Rajput social Organization and consequently as the basis for their political inclusion into the empire. Prior to the Mughals, the term 'Rajput' was equally an open-ended, generic name applied to any '"horse soldier", "trooper", or "headman of a village"' regardless of parentage...Moreover, the ease with which biological genealogies can be fabricated is well known to all. Although we have no firm evidence to prove that the type of continuous royal succession from father to son (or sometimes cousin) as reconstructed in Kota's various histories rests to some extent on condocted pedigrees, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to indicate that this practice was not elsewhere unknown in Rajasthan, if not in Kota. Any reader of the royal family histories collected by James Tod in his Annals and Antiquities will be familiar with the extraordinary legends of posthumous birth in exile of male heirs to apparently extinguished royal lineages
It was but natural that the distinctive status held by the Pratihara lineage, as the first and foremost Rajput lineage to establish a place in history,...
The period between seventh and twelfth century witnessed gradual rise of a number of new royal-lineages in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh which came to consitute a social-political category known as Rajputs. Some of the major lineages were Pratiharas of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and adjacent areas, The Guhilas and Chahamanas of Rajasthan, the Caulukyas or Solankis of Gujarat
Chandellas were a branch of lunar sept of the Rajputs.
A signal of a different kind came from the chandella dynasty. These kings narrated a complex origin myth liked to the Lunar line in their inscriptions but their origin was also associated with the Gond tribes of central India. It is said they initially worshipped a rock, Maniya Deo, installed in their earliest capital at Maloba. Through the processes of acquiring Rajput status and subscribing to Sansritic culture, which involved devotion to Puranic deities
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
111.223.26.16 (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Nishen from Bihar and Rajasthan
This article quotes unqualified historians from the West and states that "Hindu dynasties" were called Rajput. If so, why wasnt Dahir, or Brahmin kings identified as Rajputs? There were so many Hindu dynasties that didn't become Rajput, because Rajput refers to Kshariya clans. An example of Bad Politics. ZorawarOfKahlur (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
List of Rajput dynasties and states KshatranaHindu (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Noting that this page is protected as a community-authorised discretionary sanction per WP:GS/CASTE. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I was going to fix the grammar in one sentence of this article (which was obviously written by a non-native speaker of English), but I was unable to do so because it appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Kindly add Jadaun Rajputs, rulers of Braj also. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Surely you know better by now. Xan747 (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add jadon rajputs in karauli and sabalgarh Divyanshindia1407 (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add ujjainiya pramar of Bihar Kundan A Singh (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Kalchuri Dynasty There are three kalchuri Dynasty Please add all three Dynasty Kundan A Singh (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Kingdom ofSurasena, Under the Rule of Shurasena aka ShoorSaini ancestor of Modern day Saini's. He was the Father of Vasudeva, and the Grandfather of The Hindu God Krishna. He ruled over the present-day Braj region in Uttar Pradesh, with Mathura as its capital city. SikkaSingh (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)