Wikipedia

Talk:Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty

Latest comment: 5 days ago by Admantine123 in topic Some issues here must be solved
Learn more about this page

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2024

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Change "Rajapala" to "Rajyapala" in the section under the heading "List of rulers"

Reason: Spelling of the ruler Rajyapala is mentioned as "Rajyapal" in introductory section as well as on other wikipedia pages. CtrlFreak578 (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Question: which of the two is correct? M.Bitton (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Done Charliehdb (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gurjara Pratihara or Gurjar Pratihara dynasty is not a Rajput dynasty (Rajput was a status title not any community)

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

@PadFoot2008, how you can wrongly declared this dynasty as Rajput dynasty? Rajput was a status titlepage_86page_16 not any community and this Rajput title was first time used in (1200 or 1350 A.D) Padfood2008 you also gave misleading edit summary in your last edits and decalaired this dynasty as Rajput with falls summary "minor improvements"?. Many historians said this dynasty belonged to Pratihara[1][2] or Pratihar[3][4] [1] clan of Gurjars/Gujjars. And this dynasty was ruled by Gurjar Pratihars[5] not Rajput because Rajput community was formed in 1300 A.D, then how this dynasty can be mentioned as Rajput? I'm pining other senior editors to see this fall claim with misleading edit summary made by PadFood28 to see @Utcursch, Ekdalian, LukeEmily, @Fylindfotberserk:, @Flemmish Nietzsche:, @ImperialAficionado:, @Sutyarashi:, @Fowler&fowler:, @RegentsPark:. 2402:AD80:A3:4B75:1:0:90A1:D665 (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, calling it a "Rajput dynasty" is anachronistic. The "Rajput" term did not exist at the time when the Gurjara-Pratiharas ruled. PadFoot2008, the source you have used is not a strong one. There is a lot of mythified history around the subject of Rajputs. We need to treat it with care. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Flemmish Nietzsche, please you can read this entire paragraph and attached sources carefully? Please many historians said Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty belonged to Gurjar/Gurjara community including the K.M Munshi & Bhandarkara etc but sources written by other historians with full access I have mentioned here so origin of Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty is disputed because many historians said Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty belonged to Pratihara/Pratihar clan of Gujjars
  • On the basis of Parihar clan Rajput claim this dynasty but Parihar is a common clan found among many Indian communities not just in Rajput or Gurjars. In the origin etomology section of Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty#Etymology and origin it is written as
    • "An opposing theory is that Gurjara was the name of the tribe to which the dynasty belonged, and Pratihara was a clan of this tribe".
  • Please also read references I have given in the starting of this thread. When some historians believe Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty belonged to Gurjara/Gurjar tribe and historians those mentioned Pratihara as Rajput they might have mentioned about Pratiharas of Mandor not about Gurjara-Pratiharas even if some historians mentioned Gurjara-Pratihara at some occasions as Gurjar as well as Rajput then these claims theories should be mentioned in origin section not in opening lead.
2402:AD80:13B:508D:1:0:661D:442C (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit

References

  1. ^ a b Magray, Mohammed Bashir (2003). Tribal Geography of India Jammu and Kashmir. Oberoi Book Service. p. 49. Gujjars they might have come India with the 'hyun' (Hun) tribe. Latter the Gujjars have established their own settlements. It was proved latter that Bhojas' ( AD 840-90 ) predecessors and successor belonged to the pratiharas (parihar) clan of the Gujjars tribe.
  2. ^ Nijjar, Bakhshish Singh (2008). Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes of India: 900 B.C.-1947 A.D. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. p. 218. ISBN 978-81-269-0908-7. The Gujjars founded a group of dynasties that controlled areas of Rajasthan, Central India, and Gujarat from 7th to 11th century A.D. The most powerful branch of the Gujjars was the Pratihara, whose power was centered in the Jodhpur region of Rajasthan. The Pratiharas contended with the Rashtrakuta of the Deccan and the Palas of Bengal for imperial hegemony during the 9th century and controlled the great cities of Kanauj and Ujjain. The greatest Pratihara ruler was Bhoja I, reigned about 836-882 A.D., whose wealth and military might greatly impressed the Arabs.
  3. ^ Sharma, Kamal Prashad; Sethi, Surinder Mohan (1997). Costumes and Ornaments of Chamba. Indus Publishing. ISBN 978-81-7387-067-5.
  4. ^ Warikoo, Kulbhushan; Som, Sujit (2000). Gujjars of Jammu and Kashmir. Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya.
  5. ^
    • Sarban, Singh (2001). Haryana State Gazetteer. Haryana Gazetteers Organisation, Revenue Department. p. 511. Gujjars (Gujrara-Pratiharas) were once the rulers of this country. The story goes like this, "After the dissolution of Harsha's empire, Haryana continued to flourish The Pratihara empire was followed by the Tomar ruler's son of whom, Anangpala founded the city of Delhi. Haryana formed a part of his empire.
    • Hair, David (May 2011). Pyre of Queens. Penguin Books India. pp. 4 and 5. ISBN 978-0-14-333142-1. It certainly hasn't been a good year. The third year of the reign of Devaraja Pratihar, son of Nagabhata, had seen his capital, the heart of the Gujjar-Pratihar empire, shift to Avanti, leaving the old capital of Mandore in the hands of his third wife's son Ravindra-Raj. The desert folk said the gods were displeased at this turn of events and had cursed Mandore.
    • Barrett, Sonam Bhardwaj (2021-10-15). A Journey Beyond Measure. Notion Press. ISBN 978-1-63997-680-5. Gujranwala had a history of being colonised since ancient times. It is believed that Gujranwala was founded by 'Gujjars' and the place was named after them. They ruled the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty in the 7th century, during the late classical period. Gujjars were mainly agricultural communities who also founded some villages in the nearby areas.
    • Hāṇḍā, Omacanda (2001). Temple Architecture of the Western Himalaya: Wooden Temples. Indus Publishing. p. 27. ISBN 978-81-7387-115-3. During the middle of 7th century, one of the Gurjjara clans, the Pratiharas emerged dominant, followed by Parmars and Chauhans, and the imperial Pratihara-Gurjjaras of Kanauj around the middle of 8th century. In the mid 9th century, the Gurjjaras rose to the imperial heights in the north and western India under their patriarch Bhoja I. However, after his demise, the empire could not be held together for long. His son Mahendrapala-I could maintain his father's empire. He is known to have enlarged it towards the east, and his son Mahipala extended the realm deeper in the Western Himalayan interiors. The Imperial Gurjjaras (Gujjars) ruled uninterruptedly for about four centuries since their rise in the 6th century, until Kanauj fell under the attack of Mahmud of Ghazni. During that period, not only they held their realm together, but also buttressed it up against the foreign attacks and aggressions.
    • Chaurasia, Radhey Shyam (2002). History of Ancient India: Earliest Times to 1000 A. D. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. p. 206. ISBN 978-81-269-0027-5.
  6. ^

2402:AD80:A3:4B75:1:0:90A1:D665 (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some issues here must be solved

edit
Latest comment: 5 days ago15 comments11 people in discussion

PadFood2008 moved disambiguation page Pratihara [1] to with unnecessary disambiguator in history

He also changed WP:STABLE lead of Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty to Pratihara dynasty and Pratihara is not a Comman name for this dynasty full/Comman name for the dynasty is Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty, Pratihara dynasty page was already moved to Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty by @Kautilya3: Padfoot28 also add WP:OR in lead as "initially ruled the Gurjaradesa; hence, they are also called the Gurjara-Pratiharas" even in the origin of Gurjara Pratihara dynasty there is mentioned dynasty belonged to Gurjara/Gurjar tribe he changed lead without any consensus and reliable sources. PadFood28's changing lead's opening title form Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty to Pratihara dynasty even when page title/(WP:CommonName) is Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty and moving of Pratihara disamb page with unnecessary disambiguator to Pratihara (disambiguation) don't seem as per Wikipedia's Neutrality.@Utcursch:, @Ekdalian:, @LukeEmily:, @Fylindfotberserk:, @Flemmish Nietzsche:, @ImperialAficionado:, @Sutyarashi:, @Fowler&fowler:, @RegentsPark:. 2402:AD80:A3:4E80:1:0:90CD:DAFC (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The disambig page move makes sense to me, as Padfoot was right that this article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "Pratihara" (just see the disparity in views [2] [3]), but the rest of the changes mostly do not; @PadFoot2008, could you please explain why you made these changes and the ones in the prior post above?
In response to the IP's points, WP:STABLE is not a policy and only pertains to admin actions dealing with article protection when there is a dispute; just because a lead has not changed for a while, and is thus "stable" does not it make it any more correct or better; saying that the Gurjara-Pratihara "initially ruled the Gurjaradesa; hence, they are also called the Gurjara-Pratiharas" is also not original research, as it is mentioned in the origin section, but it is however giving undue weight to a view which is only held by some historians; the same goes for the shortening of the name to "Pratihara". The source which supposedly supports Padfoot's Rajput claim as well has some questionable reliability, and the claim is not supported at all by any content in the Origin of the Gurjara-Pratiharas article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree that "Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty" is the WP:COMMONNAME used by historians, not "Pratihara dynasty". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Flemmish Nietzsche, I have mentioned here briefly Talk:Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty#Gurjara Pratihara or Gurjar Pratihara dynasty is not a Rajput dynasty (Rajput was a status title not any community) in the starting of the thread & in my last comment there also about Gurjaradesa (meaning country of the Gurjars[1]). 2402:AD80:13B:508D:1:0:661D:442C (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC) 2402:AD80:13B:508D:1:0:661D:442C (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello @Flemmish Nietzsche, thanks for the ping. The reason why I used "Pratihara dynasty" in the opening section and "Gurjara-Pratiharas" later on it the lead is because the self-designation of the dynasty was "Pratihara" and not Gurjara-Pratihara. Also, it seems that a wide section of scholars seem to use the term Rajput to dynasties as old as the seventh century. A bit of a refbomb but this section in the Rajput article lists more than enough citations. PadFoot (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@PadFoot2008 what about these sources? Then? Rajput were not present see my first comment in first thread also User:Kautilya3's comment Rajput identity was not present before the time of 1200_1300 many historians also agreed on the fact that Rajputs are decedent of Gurjars, Jats & other local communities even many Gurjar, Jats, Bhil, Gond, Ahir clans became Rajput through Rajputisation#Formation.

"Recent research suggests that the Rajputs came from a variety of ethnic and geographical backgrounds and various varnas. Tanuja Kothiyal states: In the colonial ethnographic accounts rather than referring to Rajputs as having emerged from other communities, Bhils, Mers, Minas, Gujars, Jats, Raikas, all lay a claim to a Rajput past from where they claim to have 'fallen'. Historical processes, however, suggest just the opposite".

I have also provide sources in Wich historians said Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty was a dynasty of Pratihara clan or Gurjar & Gurjar tribe. If this is the case all historians are not agree that this dynasty belonged to Rajputs then how you can mentioned them in lead as Rajput dynasty?@Ekdalian:
    • Also in this link you're referring here to justify your edits nothing is mentioned in sources or on rajput page about Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty being clear a rajput dynasty kindly read your own link first you have also not replied to Kautilya3 sir.
    • You're talking here about some historians mentioned Pratihara dynasty was a rajput dynasty but you should understand Pratiharas of Mandor and Gurjara-pratihara dynasty are two different things here you can not remove word Gurjara from the page title or lead just to justify that in rajput claiming sources Pratihara dynasty mentioned so converting of "Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty" to Pratihara dynasty will not work here you should clearly used 2_3 reliable sources in Wich it should be clearly mentioned that Gurjara-pratihara dynasty was a dynasty Rajputs or belonged to Rajput clan or if do you have any reliable sources to declaired Pratiharas of Mandavyapura as a dynasty of Rajput please go ahead but sir this is not a good thing that you're trying to done here.
    • Many Rajput clans like Rathore, Chauhan, Bhati, Bargujar, Tomar, Parmar, Solanki, Vaghela, Parihar are common clans among Gurjars and Jats so that's not the case here if Rajput claims based on Parihar clan of rajput associate with Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty so Parihar is also a clan of Gurjar, Jats, Koli, Meena and some other caste groups.
    • There are also some sources written by local Indian historians those might be Rajput themselves or not in there sources Ranjit Singh of Khalsa empire was also a Rajput, Hari Singh Nalwa was also a Rajput, King porus of Punjab was also a Rajput, Pushybhuti dynasty, Karkota dynasty, Hindu shahi dynasties were rajput etcs, even Gupta dynasty in some poor sources mentioned as Rajput and Jat & Mauriyan dynasty, Mori kingdom also wrongly written as Rajput but rajput identity was not present in time of these kingdom dynasties. you said rajput were present in 7th century? Rajput claims made by local historians even go further before the time of Mauriyan and Mauriyan being Rajput.? Wikipedia will not remain a neutral platform if these things will continue @PadFoot2008: all dynasties from Afghanistan to Pakistan and Pakistan to India those rule from 5th to 14th centuries you can not declaire as Rajput.2402:AD80:A5:7FBA:1:0:91EF:D4F5 (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
      I think that the lead as of now (without Rajput that Ekladian removed) is fine. Also why does it bother you that there existed two Pratihara dynasties in India? Gurjara-Pratihara is still mentioned in the lead, however I've used "Pratihara dynasty" in the lead (not the article title which is the same) as the contemporary self-used name of the dynasty is "Pratihara dynasty", while the common name is Gurjara-Pratihara which was not used by the Pratiharas themselves. PadFoot (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
      @Kautilya3,@PadFoot2008, @Ekdalian you have used three sources one source 2nd sources said only about Pratiharas of Rajasthan not about Gurjara-Pratihara and last 3rd source talked about Rajput lineages split from Gurjara-Pratiharas so if any rajput clan is descendants from Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty it can not make Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty as Rajput you have also ignored @Kautilya3:'s point of view rajput identity was not present in 6_7th centuries and why you're not adding sources about Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty being Gurjar? I have provided all sources here ? Then why for you is only important to declaired Rajput dynasty when there are multiple sources I have provided in which it is mentioned Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty was a Gurjar dynasty? Why you can not mentioned probably a Rajput or Gurjar dynasty? Isn't more Neutral to talk about all sources? And all theories?. @Ekdalian: sir you can please see he again just pushing here Rajput castes based WP:POV here for some personal reasons same issue was with Langah Sultanate and this issue was resolved by just mentioning Sultanate belonged to Langah (clan) where on Langah (clan) it was mentioned They are considered as Jats or Rajput. Then why same can not be considered here? Padfoot2008 please you can explain why you're not mentioning on Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty that dynasty belonged to Gurjar or rajput when I have already provided sources? Why you're not covering all side of possible origin.? @RegentsPark:, @ImperialAficionado:,@Sutyarashi:. 2402:AD80:13B:47A0:1:0:67E3:6068 (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to ping @Admantine123 and LukeEmily:. They have worked extensively in the Rajput article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The recent additions were nothing but attempt to made them belonging to either Rajput or the Gurjar community. Different editors have juxtaposed numerous sources to keep it in lead. There is no need for the inclusion of this for such article of academic importance. Admantine123 (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Admantine123, believe me I did nothing PadFoot2008 wrong edits he tried to declaired dynasty as Rajput and attempted to push caste based "POV" I just requested him many times that remove rajput claim because rajput community was not formed or present in 7th century Rajput community's presence was recorded in 1350_1200 A.D. He was not agree to understand or pay attention to my requests then I requested him proving sources that mentioned dynasty with nuetral point view with both theories that They're probably Rajput or Gurjar because I provided him recent scholarly sources. But still he gave falls excuses and gave Outdated sources written by British historians or like Vincent Arthur smith and some other without knowing the WP:RAJ or ignoring the fact RajSources are not reliable and are outdated based on fringe theories. Thank very much Admantine123 also thanks to (Fylindfotberserk) for giving your time against biased editing and fixing per Wikipedia's WP:NPOV please don't mind if same attempt PadFoot2008 will make again or related user sir I'll ping you again. I'm agree with the decisions of Admantine123 & Kautilya3 origin of Gurjara Pratihara dynasty is disputed historians are not completely agree on one origin of theory so this dynasty should not be declaired neither as Gurjar nor Rajput. 2402:AD80:136:A18A:1:0:6A05:46F4 (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
With @PadFoot2008:'s recent edit. It seems that they also agree with what i have written in my edit summary. These futile discussion about the caste of ancient empire founders are going to take us nowhere. You will keep discussing and article will witness series of edit wars. I am aware of the recent controversies about both community claiming Mihir Bhoj to be their own. Atleast avoid this on english Wikipedia and do something constructive. Admantine123 (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have no reason to POV push here but I think there is no harm mentioning what you say in the lead as well. PadFoot (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fylindfotberserk thank you for pinging @Admantine123: and LukeEmily.

edit

Issue is still there & not yet addressed you only mentioned Rajput dynasty? why you can not mentioned both as "Gurjar" & "Rajput" dynasty? when I've provided sources here in Wich clearly mentioned dynasty being a "Gurjar dynasty" what's the problem to address both claims of being rajput as well as Gurjar dynasty based on the provided sources by you and I?' sorry to say current revision is not per Wikipedia's Nuetral point of view. and seem pushing specific "POV" with unsourced statement Rajput dynasty probably of Gurjar origin? But without any source this last claim is added about origin

@PadFoot2008 Thank you but kindly fix it correctly please problem is still there it's my humble request mention on lead as (It was a dynasty of Gurjars as per these source; use please these sources kindly don't just add Rajput dynasty when historians are not agree on one single origin of Gurjara Pratihara dynasty[2][3][4][5] it's quite unfair to mention dynasty only as Rajput instead of mentioning as "1_was a Gurjar or Rajput dynasty", "2_Was a dynasty of Pratihara clan of Gurjars and Rajputs", " 3_Was probably a Rajput or Gurjar dynasty, or simply as " 4_was a medieval Indian dynasty probably of Gurjar or Rajput orgin.)

Options for more clear sources based lead given options can be use;

  • Option_1

"The Gurjara Pratihara dynasty was a probably Gurjar or Rajput dynasty."

  • Option_2

"The Gurjara Pratihara was a medieval Indian Rajput (use here sources that claim dynasty being Rajput) or Gurjar (use sources those you think reliable & I have mentioned) dynasty."

  • Option_3

"The Gurjara Pratihara was a medieval Indian dynasty of Pratihara clan. They are considered as Rajputs or Gurjars."

  • Option_4

"The Gurjara Pratihara dynasty was a medieval Indian dynasty of a possibly Rajput or Gurjar origin."

°°kindly don't remove word Gurjara because in your cited sources it is also mentioned Gurjara-Pratihara Rajput dynasty & Gurjara-Pratihara Gurjar dynasty it's a common name for the dynasty sources that I have provide also use full name "Gurjara Pratihara dynasty" also use sources for Gurjar claim I have provided you==>> use any sources from this as per your choice to add this dynasty also claimed as Gurjar dynasty by many historians their claim is mentioned in these books kindly use any source out of these.[3][2][5][6][4]

You mentioned Rajput dynasty probably oF Gurjar that's not a valid claim Pratihar Rajput dynasty can not be mentioned as descendant of Gurjars without sources here any user will remove such unsourced claims. So it is better to choose one option I have mentioned above but use sources those I have provided here and format lead properly that Gurjara Pratihara was probably a Gurjar or Rajput dynasty.

Option_5

No problem you can mentioned "dynasty of Rajputs or Gurjars". Or "Probably Dynasty of Gurjars or Rajput". no matter if you will mention Rajput in first or Gurjar but please don't add that Rajput dynasty of Gurjar origin in your cited sources this claim is not mentioned even in the sources that I have provided here this claim is not found that Gurjara Pratihara dynasty of Rajput is from descendants of Gurjars.

Please correct falls statement that Rajput dynasty probably or Gurjar origin that's not acceptable as this statement is unsourced Kindly clearly mentioned according to the options that I have provided or you can simply add Gurjara Pratihara dynasty of Rajput or Gurjar Origin. You only mentioned Rajput dynasty that's not fair even you're not ready to use any sources that I have provided to use for Gurjar claims on lead that's issue is still there. 2402:AD80:A0:35D2:1:0:93E2:CCD7 (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The reason for the lead is because the authors that say that the Gurjara-Pratiharas were of a Gurjara, also agree that they were at the same time Rajput as well. Have a look at this:
  • Vincent Smith believed that the Pratiharas were certainly of Gurjara (or Gujjar) origin, and stated that there is possibility of other Agnikula Rajput clans being of same origin.
  • Dr. K. Jamanadas also states that the Pratihara clan of Rajputs descended from the Gujjars, and this. "raises a strong presumption that the other Rajput clans also are the descendants from the Gurjaras or the allied foreign immigrants".
  • D. B. Bhandarkar also believed that Pratiharas were a clan of Gujjars. In his book The Glory that was Gujardesh (1943), Gurjar writer K. M. Munshi stated that the Pratiharas and some other Rajput clans were of Gujjar (or Gurjar) origin. However, some other historians believe that although some sections of the Pratiharas (eg. the one to which Mathanadeva belonged) were Gujjars by caste, the imperial Pratiharas of Kannauj were not Gujjars.
  • H. A. Rose and Denzil Ibbetson stated that there is no conclusive proof that the Agnikula Rajput clans are of Gurjara origin;
The authors above call the dynasty Rajput and state that they might have a Gurjar origin. Additionally the actual name and the common name of the dynasty both are present in the lead, and the article is still at "Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty" and I've not moved it or anything. PadFoot (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit
  1. ^ Mahapatra, B. P. (1989). Constitutional languages. Presses Université Laval. p. 20. ISBN 978-2-7637-7186-1. The name "Gujarat" is derived from the Sanskrit Gurjaratra through the intermediate Prakrit form "Gujjaratta", which apparantly means "the country of the Gujars".
  2. ^ a b Nijjar, Bakhshish Singh (2008). Origins and History of Jats and Other Allied Nomadic Tribes of India: 900 B.C.-1947 A.D. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. p. 218. ISBN 978-81-269-0908-7. The Gujjars founded a group of dynasties that controlled areas of Rajasthan, Central India, and Gujarat from 7th to 11th century A.D. The most powerful branch of the Gujjars was the Pratihara, whose power was centered in the Jodhpur region of Rajasthan. The Pratiharas contended with the Rashtrakuta of the Deccan and the Palas of Bengal for imperial hegemony during the 9th century and controlled the great cities of Kanauj and Ujjain. The greatest Pratihara ruler was Bhoja I, reigned about 836-882 A.D., whose wealth and military might greatly impressed the Arabs.
  3. ^ a b Magray, Mohammed Bashir (2003). Tribal Geography of India Jammu and Kashmir. Oberoi Book Service. p. 49. Gujjars they might have come India with the 'hyun' (Hun) tribe. Latter the Gujjars have established their own settlements. It was proved latter that Bhojas' ( AD 840-90 ) predecessors and successor belonged to the pratiharas (parihar) clan of the Gujjars tribe.
  4. ^ a b *Sarban, Singh (2001). Haryana State Gazetteer. Haryana Gazetteers Organisation, Revenue Department. p. 511. Gujjars (Gujrara-Pratiharas) were once the rulers of this country. The story goes like this, "After the dissolution of Harsha's empire, Haryana continued to flourish The Pratihara empire was followed by the Tomar ruler's son of whom, Anangpala founded the city of Delhi. Haryana formed a part of his empire.
    • Chaurasia, Radhey Shyam (2002). History of Ancient India: Earliest Times to 1000 A. D. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. p. 206. ISBN 978-81-269-0027-5. The word Gurjar is also associated with the Pratiharas. The Gurjar tribe belonged to the Central Asia. When the Gupta kingdom was on its last leg under the weight of repeated invasions of the Huns, at that time these Gurjars got an opportunity to carve out small states in Punjab, Marwar and Bharoach. Dr. Smith regards Gurjars as the descendants of Huns. Dr. Bhandarkar thinks that the Pratiharas were the descendants of the Gurjars.
    • Bipin Shah (2020-03-15). Agnikul Legend and Origin Of Gujaratis. pp. 5 and 6. pithet "Pratihara" after "Gurjara" comes with dubious distinctions. Some opines that they served as a body guards to other rulers like Guhilot while some say the epithet was given as the defender of the India's frontier since they repulsed and threw out Arab's from India's heartland. In spite of their military success, they must have remained delegitimized in the eyes of masses and Brahmins because of their obscure foreign origin. The other Gujjar clans like Chauhan, Paramara, Solanki, Chavda, Vaghela and Guhilot remained the allies and fiduciary to paramount ruler of Imperial Gurjara-Pratihara.
    • Hair, David (May 2011). Pyre of Queens. Penguin Books India. pp. 4 and 5. ISBN 978-0-14-333142-1. It certainly hasn't been a good year. The third year of the reign of Devaraja Pratihar, son of Nagabhata, had seen his capital, the heart of the Gujjar-Pratihar empire, shift to Avanti, leaving the old capital of Mandore in the hands of his third wife's son Ravindra-Raj. The desert folk said the gods were displeased at this turn of events and had cursed Mandore.
    • Barrett, Sonam Bhardwaj (2021-10-15). A Journey Beyond Measure. Notion Press. ISBN 978-1-63997-680-5. Gujranwala had a history of being colonised since ancient times. It is believed that Gujranwala was founded by 'Gujjars' and the place was named after them. They ruled the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty in the 7th century, during the late classical period. Gujjars were mainly agricultural communities who also founded some villages in the nearby areas.
    • Hāṇḍā, Omacanda (2001). Temple Architecture of the Western Himalaya: Wooden Temples. Indus Publishing. p. 27. ISBN 978-81-7387-115-3. During the middle of 7th century, one of the Gurjjara clans, the Pratiharas emerged dominant, followed by Parmars and Chauhans, and the imperial Pratihara-Gurjjaras of Kanauj around the middle of 8th century. In the mid 9th century, the Gurjjaras rose to the imperial heights in the north and western India under their patriarch Bhoja I. However, after his demise, the empire could not be held together for long. His son Mahendrapala-I could maintain his father's empire. He is known to have enlarged it towards the east, and his son Mahipala extended the realm deeper in the Western Himalayan interiors. The Imperial Gurjjaras (Gujjars) ruled uninterruptedly for about four centuries since their rise in the 6th century, until Kanauj fell under the attack of Mahmud of Ghazni. During that period, not only they held their realm together, but also buttressed it up against the foreign attacks and aggressions.
  5. ^ a b Warikoo, Kulbhushan; Som, Sujit (2000). Gujjars of Jammu and Kashmir. Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya. p. 27. It shows that the Chavada and their successors the Pratihar or Padhyar were Gurjars and were quite distinct from Mandor family.
  6. ^ Sharma, Kamal Prashad; Sethi, Surinder Mohan (1997). Costumes and Ornaments of Chamba. Indus Publishing. ISBN 978-81-7387-067-5.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gurjara-Pratihara_dynasty&oldid=1237114259"