Wikipedia

Talk:Rajput/Archive 35

< Talk:Rajput
Latest comment: 5 months ago by 2409:4085:8187:B581:0:0:35C:80B0 in topic Rajput and Rajputra are two different words
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Mughal and Rajput alliances against Sikhs and Maratha empire

Latest comment: 6 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Please discuss or suggest copy-edits/deletions. I am not suggesting that a new section be created, only that some(not necessariy all) of this can be added at the proper places. Rather than deletions, please present opposing views for the Rajput politics(relations of Sikhs with Mughals or Shivaji with Mughals are not relevant to the page).

suggested: Eugenia Vanina says several writings did not approve of the mughal-rajput alliance. The Sikh Guru, Guru Gobind Singh, also criticized the Rajput rulers of the Himalayan regions near Punjab for marrying their womenfolk to the Muslim rulers.[1] University of Washington Historian Purnima Dhavan notes that the Sikhs in Punjab had successfully held out against the attacks by Rajputs on Anandpur. However, the Rajputs in conflict with Guru Gobind Singh, finally requested the Mughals for help in 1704. Together, they were successful in displacing Guru Gobind Singh from Anandpur to Malwa where a number of Jats joined the Khalsa warrior community.[2]Vanina also discusses the Rajput disputes Shivaji under the leadership of the Mughals. Shivaji's caste(Maratha) was formed in a similar ways as the Rajputs i.e. by giving up their traditional agricultural/pastoral occupation and embracing the role of a warrior. This rise in status did not bother the Rajputs until the Shivaji challenged the Mughals and claimed victory. A certain writer Kavindra Paramananda, Shivaji's contemporary, has listed several Rajput clans that fought against Shivaji under the Mughal banner. Although nationalist historians have considered fighting against a "fellow Hindu Shivaji under the Muslim banner" as treason, neither Paramananda nor Vanina have done so. Vanina simply considers it as a regional rather than a religious dispute.[3]

Sikhs raided the Pahari areas and the Pahari Rajputs joined hands with the Mughal administration, specifically Zakariya Khan Bahadur of Lahore. This led to the first "great massacre of Sikhs in 1746" or "Chhota Ghallughara". Some Rajputs embraced Sikhism after the massacre, which the Sikhs viewed as a "symbolic victory".[4]

It is very important to note that a lot of the narratives were part of the Sikh claims to warrior hood as per Dr Purnima Dhavan in Chapter Sikhism in Eighteenth Century in Oxford handbook of Sikh Studies here is the quote just below the above mentioned part -

Even in these reduced circumstances, later texts would note, the Guru continued to rally his supporters, pursued a diplomatic exchange with the Mughal court, and despite his difficulties, did not budge from his original claims of miri and piri or restrict his patronage and protection to the Khalsa (p. 51) alone. This charismatic leadership, courtliness, and open-handed patronage, even in difficult times, would remain the benchmark against which later Sikh courtly traditions would judge their own claims to warrior status

Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

I request you to add the following things:

1) Varna: Kshatriya, The varna of Rajputs is Kshatriya. Hence, varna should be included as Kshatriya. It should be added in infobox and also the places were the varna is discussed.[5]

2) Origin: The Rajputs are originated from the old Vedic Kshatriyas. While a few clans may have origins in pastoral or Shudra communities, that doesn't mean the whole Rajput community is of that origin. It is clearly proven in the book "Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas" by "Kumar Cheda Singh Verma" that the 'Rajput',' 'Kshatriya,' 'Thakur,' 'Chattri,' and 'Rajputra' are all equivalent terms used to denote ancient Vedic Kshatriyas who belonged to a royal bloodline of kings. In conclusion, it is clearly proved that Rajputs are descendants of ancient Vedic Kshatriyas, and their varna is Kshatriya.[6]

3) Remove the lines where it is written that Rajputs are of Pastoral, Shudra or Nomadic tribe origin. And add "Rajputs are decendants of vedic Kshatriyas".[7]

4) Please replace "The term Rajput covers various patrilineal clans historically associated with warriorhood: several clans claim Rajput status, although not all claims are universally accepted. According to modern scholars, almost all Rajput clans originated from peasant or pastoral communities." With "The term Rajput covers various patrilineal Kshatriya clans historically associated with warriorhood. The Rajputs are descendants of ancient Vedic Kshatriyas."


Link of refrence = https://books.google.co.in/books?id=SFUoAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=kshatriya+and+would+be+kshatriya&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6wsjn3OaFAxUZmq8BHWrMAjEQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=Rajput&f=false

Gaurav Bisen Powar (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right brother. These changes are very essential for this page. If anyone can do these changes then it will be good for this page. Alex Cupper (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas (1904) by Kumar Cheda Singh Verma is not a reliable source. Use only up-to-date academic sources for caste content, and never anything published during the British Raj. See WP:RAJ. Bishonen | tålk 22:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC).
"Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas " is one of the most reliable book when it comes to real history and origin of Rajputs. It is totally based on the real evidences that proves Rajputs are decendants of Kshatriyas. Also, it is not based on British Raj sources. All the theories regarding the origin of Rajputs is discussed in this book and the conclusion is that "Rajputs are decendants of Kshatriyas".

I request you to edit the following things:

1) Varna: Kshatriya, The varna of Rajputs is Kshatriya. Hence, varna should be included as Kshatriya. It should be added in infobox and also the places were the varna is discussed.[8]

2) Origin: The Rajputs are originated from the old Vedic Kshatriyas. While a few clans may have origins in pastoral or Shudra communities, that doesn't mean the whole Rajput community is of that origin. It is clearly proven in the book "Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas" by "Kumar Cheda Singh Verma" that the 'Rajput',' 'Kshatriya,' 'Thakur,' 'Chattri,' and 'Rajputra' are all equivalent terms used to denote ancient Vedic Kshatriyas who belonged to a royal bloodline of kings. In conclusion, it is clearly proved that Rajputs are descendants of ancient Vedic Kshatriyas, and their varna is Kshatriya.[9]

3) Remove the lines where it is written that Rajputs are of Pastoral, Shudra or Nomadic tribe origin. And add "Rajputs are decendants of vedic Kshatriyas".[10]

4) Please replace "The term Rajput covers various patrilineal clans historically associated with warriorhood: several clans claim Rajput status, although not all claims are universally accepted. According to modern scholars, almost all Rajput clans originated from peasant or pastoral communities." With "The term Rajput covers various patrilineal Kshatriya clans historically associated with warriorhood. The Rajputs are descendants of ancient Vedic Kshatriyas.

Gaurav Bisen Powar (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The source is unreliable, already mentioned above! Ekdalian (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, Gaurav Bisen Powar, what do you mean by saying the book "is not based on British Raj sources"? It's from 1904! If it's based on sources that are still older than the British Raj, then that's all the worse. I repeat: Use only up-to-date academic sources for caste content. If you don't listen to advice from experienced users, you will have a difficult time here. Bishonen | tålk 19:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC).

References

  1. ^ Eugenia Vanina (2012). Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man. Primus Books. pp. 167–. ISBN 9789380607191.
  2. ^ Purnima Dhavan; Pashaura Singh; Louis E. Fenech (27 March 2014). The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies. OUP Oxford. pp. 50–. ISBN 978-0-19-100411-7.
  3. ^ Eugenia Vanina (2012). Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man. Primus Books. pp. 167–. ISBN 9789380607191.
  4. ^ Louis E. Fenech (14 January 2021). The Cherished Five in Sikh History. Oxford University Press. pp. 70–. ISBN 978-0-19-753285-0.
  5. ^ Kumar Cheda Singh Verma. Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas.
  6. ^ Kumar Cheda Singh Verma. Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas.
  7. ^ Kumar Cheda Singh Verma. Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas.
  8. ^ Kumar Cheda Singh Verma. Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas.
  9. ^ Kumar Cheda Singh Verma. Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas.
  10. ^ Kumar Cheda Singh Verma. Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas.

Rajput and Rajputra are two different words

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@LukeEmily, The words Rajput and Rajputra are not the same, Rajputra means son of a king, there are kings in every caste, tribe and varna, so will all these kings be considered Rajputs? In the Ramayana, Meghnatha is described as the Rajputra and even an inscription at Huna Toramana declares him as Rajputra. So linking the present Rajputs with the ancient Rajputras is baseless or else the word Rajputra should be explained correctly in this article. 2409:4085:8187:B581:0:0:35C:80B0 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rajput/Archive_35&oldid=1248433040"