Talk:Saini/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Quality Improvement - Article almost rewritten but needs more work

This article has been almost 80% rewritten now and continuous attempts are being made to improve the quality of the content and citations. It is now better cited than 90% of the other wikipedia articles about ethnic groups from India. Our aim is to turn this into a top notch academic tract with foolproof references and citations. In a year from now , this article will be among the best written and best cited wikipedia articles on the web. I know the citations still need more work but relatively speaking it is now still better than most of wikipedia articles about Indian/Pakistani castes on quality scale.

Following sections are waiting to be included, pending availability of reliable citations:

1) Queen Sheetla Saini  
2) Banveer Saini 
3) Pre-Jat period Saini rulers of Bharatpur  
4) Saini General in Hemu's army in 2nd Battle of Panipat 

Let us not dismiss the above lightly. These are trails worth following. With the availability of an unimpeachable citation about Rajput General Gurdan Saini from Amir Khusro's work, the existence of credible citations for the above characters seems to be a distinct possibility. It is just a matter of getting hold of the right textual sources. --Internet Scholar (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussions

There were a couple of ignorant caste bigots who had sought to vandalize this article few days ago. A lot of insults and threats of physical violence were exchanged which have been deleted for a good reason as they were devoid of any intellectual merit and were open violation of wikipedia guidelines. A death threat was hurled by a paper tiger much like Cervantes' Don Quixote flailing at windmills. Or if you would allow me some more poetic license, his tongue was perhaps longer than his sword. I am speaking in Freudian terms. So you know what I mean... Anyways, it does not take a lot bravery to indulge in bombastic and vainglorious bluster on internet when you know there is no way of experiencing consequence (atleast physical ones) of one's speech. Even a jackal can hurl a death threat at a caged tiger. It won't make it a tiger howsoever it might want to be thought of that way:-)

These deleted exchanges can be found here for anyone who has an interest in wading through a drain of filth to recover a pearl or two lost there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saini&diff=288567913&oldid=288428270

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saini&diff=287744100&oldid=287743843

Hey, i am ur Daddy. This paragraph was taken from your history and it clearly indicates that your ancestors sucked up to the muslim invaders rather than fighting againts him. Now u call urself Sardar. So just shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.32.170 (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC) whatsoever ,i m from the most ancient family of rulers mah dear.and i do not think it necessary to indulge in such vulgar filth frm u,u r not surely an indian and if u an american u deseve what happens in ur country,and if u r british u were a nation of merchants and will always be.its written nowhere that sainis were rajputs and mah fathers phd was on rajput divisions i wouldnt obviously mind sending u a copy.on the death threat mah dear,publish it and face the consequences urself,i dare u as u r a jackel urself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.1.185 (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Most respectfully, if your dad is a scholar of history ask him where did the ruling Rajput Surasenas (Shoorsainis) vanish suddenly from the history after ruling Mathura right up to the time of Ghazni's and Ghori's invasions? They are even mentioned in Mahabharata as the foremost Yadava tribe of Lord Krishna. This Rajput dynasty held Mathura at different times right up to 11th century? Respond with maturity if you respond at all. Otherwise, G'day.

The one who thinks that we can just talk like a Jakal on the internet can see me at any time at the Raj Vilas Bhawan at Jadla, Nawanshar, Punjab, just make a phone call before you come. I can provide my phone number here if you want that, and the kind of vulgar language you have used goes to to show how much a scholar you are, and your arrogance comes out thru your addressing yourself as a scholar. Well till now we made no personal comments against you...anyway, we're bringing this out through the media here since you foreigners are trying to change the demographic identities of india. Karan112 (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW , where is this kingdom of Jalda? [ its not a Kingdom, its a principality ] Are you a Ghorewaha of Ghorewala? Why did the Ghorewala present a horse to Sahabuddin Ghori when his soldiers were slaughtering your fellow Hindus, imposing Jaziya, destroying temples, abducting their women as 'right hand possessions', and torturing, humiliating and blinding their proud and heroic king Prithvi Raj Chauhan? Don't you think Ghorewala would have met same fate as Prithvi Raj if he had fought Sahabuddin insread of sucking up to him to get a Jagir? it was a Kingdom then, not a Jagir

okay I stand corrected - kingdom it be then, but you are admitting when the brave king of Hindus Prithvi Raj Chauhan was being tortured and humilated, his Rajput followers being slaughtered or being converted to Islam at sword's edge, their women being taken as the booty of war, your Gorewahas joined his enemies instead of supporting him and facing the heat of the battlefield and persecutions. In USA , we call this the House Negro phenomenon.

"Man, came from Kot Kurman or Kurwan on a pilgrimage to Jawala Mukhi. Near Awak or Rakh, a place in Ludhiana, close to Rupar, they met Shahabuddin Ghori, who was then the ruling monarch. They had a fine horse which they presented to the king, who, in return, gave each as much country as he could ride in a day. Hawaha took this side of the Sutlej, and Kachwaha took the other side; and at night-fall, the former threw down the spear (sela), where is now the village of Selkiana, to show the limit of his domain; while the latter marked the spot he had arrived at by his bracelet (kangan), on the site of the present village Kanganwal. After this Kuchwaha returned to Udaipur, but Hawaha stayed here and held both territories. The accounts of the successors of Hawaha are very various."

How did so many Ghorewalas end up converting to Islam? Did Ghorewala Kachchwahas like the Kachchwahas of Jaipur give their daughters to Muslims? I am glad you want to bring things our in the "media" because a lot needs to come out. There are too many unanswered questions which I hope your endeavor will get answered. It will bring out the true and realistic Rajput history out of the wood work the way it needs to be.

First of all, its not Ghorewala, its Ghorewaha (its not someone's name, its a sub-clan name), 2nd Raja Man never came to Ark, Raja Hawaha and his brother came to Ark , 3rd you are talking in a childish manner, the disscusion was not about my family history but rather about Sainis being Rajputs or not, third Yes i am a Ghorewaha, third the media is only a medium to show how people who have no idea about indian culture and demos are giving the impression that Sainis ARE Rajputs instead of stating that they claim DESCENT from a specific Rajput. And also, the "media" does not about asking people from ex-rulling houses - "Why did your ancestor ally with the Mohamad Ghori or Akbar ?" since these are questions settled in History. Yes, a majority of the Ghorewahas did convert to Islam but you probably dont know, Jadla was a junior prince's estate but when the Rana of Rahon, who had succeded the Raja of Machiwara converted to Islam Shri Tikka Rana Fateh Singh ji of Jadla had severed his head for the act and his Jagir was confiscated but later during the time of Alamgir Aurangzeb the grandson of the Rana's survining son was made a Chaudhry or Governer and he built a Fort at Rahon that still stands there. What i'm trying to say is that if its a question of Islam, it was done by greedy and ambitious men who were more often than not checked for the same. Karan112 (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this response. You have in principle agreed that Ghorewahas gained the principality from Muhammad Ghori who was in his time the greatest enemy of self-respecting Rajputs. The point is that you are admitting that the Rajput tribe that are connected with turned the collaborator of invading Muslims instead of fighting them. Do you agree that not all Rajput tribes were ready to make this compromise and as a consequence got pushed out of power equation , forcing them to take up other professions to survive Muslim onslaught with dignity? You would probably not agree that even Meos, Sansis, Mehtons and many Jat tribes such as Brars and Siniswars have any Rajput ancestry. Did you know that Maharaja Ranjit Singh was from a gypsy tribe of Sansis which had spun off from Yaduvanshi Rajput descendants of Sans Mal Bhati after battle with Khilji. You say it is not history that is the issue here. It is precisely history that is the issue and ethno-history to be more precise. Popular perception as a source of social and historial identity is not always a reliable parameter. The issues of identity is much more complex than you think.

There are three broad sources of history and identity, i.e., self-perception, popular perception and textual sources. Out of these three textual sources are most reliable, the other two are not always reliable. With regard to Sainis , all textual sources seem to indicate a strong Rajput background. The citation provided is explicit that Sainis were Rajputs who relocated from another part of the country to Punjab after the defeat of Rajputs in successive battles with Turk invaders and maintained their Rajput character despite the migration. Nothing is denied regarding their taking up of agricultural profession which was a necessity for any Rajput tribe not ready to curry favor with Muslim invaders. The classification used is 'Rajput agricultural' which is indicated by the secondary source. The same source is also used by Encyclopedia Britannica as a reliable citation. So your frustration appears to be with the textual source primarily. You are not likely to gain much traction on this forum if you are going to attack reliable textual sources and present your 'common sense' as your argument. You are on the wrong forum then and wrong media. Textual sources, citations and references are the stock-in-trade of this encyclopedia.

On another note, if Rana Pratap's desecendants had not compromised with Moghuls , they too would have ended up in a similar professions like that of Sansis, Meos, Ror community, Sainis, etc who put up a brave fight but lost. There is no shame in losing after a brave fight. There is more shame in "if you can't beat them, join them' kind of ideology which many morally degraded Rajput tribes adopted. Rana Pratap died in poverty too. The Rajputs who were able to cling to the power structure during Muslim era did so through compromises which were unacceptable to many others. And this kink of history shaped their identity as they live and express it in the conteporary social milieu. So history is very much an issue here. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.132.217 (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I found the following on Ror community article which is interesting:

Rors are the only Kshatriya group in India who did not give daughters to either Turks or Mughals and there is not a single recorded case of a Ror ever converting to Islam. Furthermore, there is also no record of any Ror ever serving a mughal/turk/afghan in the history of India. It has been recorded that Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars are big communities among Muslims and they also gave daughters to Mughals. In similar situations, the Ror decided to fight to the last instead of giving in to the invaders' demands. For this reason, the Ror consider themselves the foremost Vedic Kshatriyas and do not intermarry with Rajputs. Rors uphold and cherish the ideals of Maharana Pratap, who in his time had banned intermarriages with those Rajputs who had given their daughters to Mughals.

Mayankraj Singh Tomar,DHOLPUR HOUSE,opp rawatbhata road rac headquarters,kota rajasthan,ph no 9712342974,lets find out who shoots whome,maleech.

Swell! What chivalry! Now also send me money for air ticket from USA so that I am fly down into your mushy country to fight a duel with you. Or should I ask US army to provide me an ICBM? Go on kid! Don't waste your time here.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.1.185 (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 

Mr Internet scholar,Cant you even afford a ticket to India. . .why dont you admit that you have nothing to say, you seem to be a kid who has taken to personal attacks when you've lost the argument. Karan112 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC).

Again there is no content in your post worth a response. Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.132.217 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Scholar, the Jat tribes you mentioned descend from Rajputs but please bear in mind that their ancestor at one time was a Rajput, not that they still are Rajputs. You on the other hand are trying to give the impression that sainis indeed still are Rajputs whereas they are not accepted as such anywhere, the Rors explicitly are accepted as a accentric rajput group but the sainis are not Rajputs and are not accepted as such either . Note - They might have had a Rajput ancestor at some point in time. Since you dont have much to say, why are you trying to shift the attention towards the Rajput-Mughal equation ? I'll give a lil quotation too, this is From Sir Alfred Lyall - Rajputs are born worriors, and no family of human race ever possesed so liberal a portion of reckless daring Ever heard of Jaimal Singh Rathore and Patta Singh Jugwat, Jaimal after being wounded numerous times was carried on the back of Kala Singh Rathore as the former wanted to die fighting ..ever heard of Raja Dullah Bhatti who forced Padshah Akbar to shift his capital to Lahore for 20 Years or of the Durga Das Rathore who commanded 30,000 cavalry and of whom Aurangzeb was scared, I'll quote again R S Sharma - Familial and racial pride is said to be more developed in the Rajput community than in any other community. General Knott at Kandahar during the Afghan war in 1841 wrote- It was the Finest thing i ever saw, these 8,000 afghans could not stand our 1,200 Rajputs for even one hour . . . have you heard of Veer Amar Singh Rathore, when he stabbed salbat Khan , the mughal cheif of army, Shah Jehan ran into the Zanan Khana or the women's quaters to hide, after that, Amar Singh killed 100 mughal soldiers before he jumped with his horse from the Agra Fort walls.....could you be kind enough to write about a so-called Saini Rajput Ruller ? Karan112 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

i'll quote more -

1. Dear Mr.Karan here is your Questions answer for Saini Rajput Warrior:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurdan_Saini

2. Saini also listed here:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajput_clans

Clarkpoon (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You got the stick by wrong end. Nobody questioned the bravery of Rajputs but not all were brave. The brave ones fought to the last and persihed like Prithvi Raj Chauhan, Gurdan Saini, Hamir Dev Chauhan , Rana Pratap, Bappa Rawal and so on. The coward ones betrayed their own and joined the invaders , some even gave up their religion, begged Muslim masters to give them Jagirs, assumed pompous titles, gave away their daughters into their harems. These ones- the very moral scum of Hindu society- are the ones who were allowed to remain in power so long as they were loyal to their masters. You are making a case for them and others make the case for those who fought to the last and went out in a blaze of glory in the battle field like Gurdan Saini. Shoorsainis never accepted the legitimacy of the Turk rule. They remained in perpetual rebellion, first as Rajputs and then as part of the Khalsa....you are the one who is dodging the issue. Please answer again when Hindu temples were being torn down, Rajputs were being slaughtered, Hindu king, Prithvi Raj, was being tortured and humiliated, Hindu women were being taken as sex slaves, what business did your Ghorewaha ancestors, unless they were traitors and cowards, had in receiving Jagirs from Ghori who is the biggest villain of Hindu/Rajput history? Lastly, no Saini has asked you provide them certificate of Rajput background. The textual proofs and opinions of scholars is enough. Your opinion means nothing.--99.233.132.217 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all Remove the saini guy's name from amongst Rajput Warriors, i dont see how is the question of if sainis are Rajputs or not comes down to knowing of why my ancestors sided with tyrant Shabubudin Ghori, provide me a reaon why i would tell a mere commoner that why did HH take a certain decision. My opinion matters a lot dude. Get it straight Sainis are not Rajputs. They can keep wishing. And soorsaini ? LOL i live in punjab and i've never heard that before. The bible says the earth is flat. Its a textual source, please make the appropriate changes in the wiki page concerning the planet earth. Karan112 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And mind you language you serf when you call my ancestors traitors or cowards, you dont even know their names, would you like me calling your ancestors beggars and theives for what they did in India. Karan112 (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies if that question hurt your pride but it is still an unanswered question. Its okay if you don't want to answer it here. People will understand it given your personal feelings. But look at how you had begun on this discusson. You began with insulting and threatening attacks and from your last post it does not seem you to still recognize your excess. Your problem is that you are not comfortable with textual sources of history. Unless somebody gets you to work with them, it is futile to discuss anything with you with the hope of a constructive outcome. This is an encyclopedia. References , citations and textual soruces mean everything here. If you have a problem with this , you are on the wrong forum. The above refrence about Gurdan Saini is from Amir Khusro's work who was eyewitness to the battle of Ranthambore. If you think that Gurdan Saini was not a Rajput then you are concluding that Sisodia Rajputs were fighting under a commander from a lesser caste. This contradicts your own stand and dogma. This reference has been scrutinized by a number of modern scholars (all mentioned in that article). None has questioned the authenticity of the account or the text that contains it. You are shooting the messenger because you do not like the message which upsets the world view you grew up indoctrinated with. But thats your problem not of those who instead choose to work with the methodological approach prescribed by wikipedia and other encyclopedias. You don't want to believe Sukhvir Singh Gahlot's reference on the Rajput ancestry and character of Punjabi Sainis and this is an author cited by Encycolopedia Britannica as an authority on Indian ethno-histories. In other words you have pithced yourself in battle against all accepted standards of modern scholarship, not just wikipedia. Good luck! Let others know when you have become successful with it. I am unlikely to have further exchanges with you unless you show change in your approach. Thank you for the time you spent this page. I wish you well. Regards.--99.233.132.217 (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Are You Agree That Yadu & Yadav's Are Rajputs? Saini's Are Descent From Yaduvanshi Rajputs.
    Yadu -> Yadav -> Saini

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yadav#Saini_or_Surasena_Yadav_history

    Hope This Helps! Clarkpoon (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you still dint get my point. Agreed, Saini is a tribe the origin of which lies with the Yaduvanshi Rajputras, but as of today they are not Rajputs. For being a Rajput, one's mother and father both must be Raajputs. The sainis openly intermary with Jats, Chamars and all other ethenic Groups, how can they be considered rajputs ? Karan112 (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me answer this for the sake of order on this page before some Saini overreacts to this insult and another fist fight breaks out here. You obviously know very little about the history of Sainis as an ethnic group. Intermarriage with other castes has only begun after the independence of India with the growing trend of westernization in the community. I don't think they intermarry with Chamars even now because as late as 1994, there is a report of Sainis involved in the honor killings of their girl who dared to marry outside the caste. There is a Times of India news story of Sainis going to prison for killing their girl and her Ahir husband (reference cited in the article). Very regrettable thing indeed but it shows the rural section of their populace has not modernized as much and are perhaps is as backward as any other tribe of Rajput background in this respect. In Rajputana , some Rajputs are heavily involved in female infanticide out of the issues of pride and honor. Is that a sign of progress or backwardness? The caste pride you value as a Rajput virtue is a sign of cultral darkness. If Sainis, Khatris, Jats, etc have been moving away from it in the urbanized and educated milieu, it only shows a sign of progress. Among Sikh Sainis it is the influence of casteless teaching of Sikhism. There is nothing to be ashamed about it.

A hundered years ago Sainis were as conservative as any other caste on the issue of intercaste linkages. British records indicate that they had been strictly endogamous to the extent they would not even have liasions with Rajput Malis of Rajasthan who are of pure Rajput blood, leave alone other castes of non-kshatriya background . Further, they also practiced regional endogamy within Saini community itself, with Sainis of Hoshiarpur and Jalandhar claiming superiority over Sainis of other areas for right or wrong reason. Sainis like other tribes of Rajput descent have never practiced 'Karewa', while many other Rajput tribes who took to agriculture have practiced this custom leading to their assimilation with Jats. I think in this reference only the cited scholar concluded that Sainis of Punjab and around maintained their Rajput character to full extent, i.e, they never practiced 'karewa' and never gave up carrying arms. Mere involvement with agriculture does not take away Rajput character of a tribe. All Rajput tribes of Punjab were involved with agriculture and were designated as agricultural tribes in Brtish era without exception.

But I don't understand your convoluted reasoning. How can one Hindu tribe fall down by marrying with another caste but within the faith but other Hindu tribes can claim the status quo despite giving their daughters to Muslims who are technically 'malechchas'. How did serving Sahabuddin Ghori, who was a 'malechcha' , did not lead to loss of Rajput status of your forefathers? Why the Jaipur Kachawahas, and all other Rajput tribes of Rajputana except Sisodias, are still Rajputs despite sending thier girls into Muslim harems while other Rajputs who never co-operated with Muslim rulers and fought them tooth and nail lose their status just by marrying with Jats or Khatris who are still people of their own faiths? Maybe you can answer this for me. I have never been able to put my head around it. Hindu society has developed absurdities and contradictions peculiar to its own.--99.233.132.217 (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sir,if u say sisodias were the only one who didnt send their daughters to the muslims,then u must include Tomars,as there is no such incidents which tarnish the clan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.15.246 (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I think you are right. I checked my sources again and found that Tomars are no where recorded to have followed this practice which led to many Rajputs being excummunicated by Maha Rana Pratap.--142.142.25.83 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

One looses his Rajput status when he intermarries and mixes his blood with lower or even a higher caste, when you know nothing about how caste calculations then why do you wish to needlessly argue. Sainis are not Jats nor Rajputs, they are Malis, i suppose whom you are calling sainis are the Sens who are called Seni in songs and popular usage sometimes.For example Raja Ratansen, it was common earlier for Rajputs to use the suufix of Mal, Varma, Sen. But even with Sens, most are not Rajputs today and in Rajasthan and Bihar you can find certain communities who name themselves in such a manner that they seem to resemble Rajputs and even in Punjab certain chamars use "Chauhan" now. The ruler of the clan giving his daughter to a non Rajput makes not much difference, a regular practise by the royalty and nobility makes the clan a "halki jaat" or a lesser clan and when such a practise by all the members starts, the clan ceases to be Rajput. And what you call "backwardness" is preserving our ancient pure blood "Chatees Raj Kul". Karan112 (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Chatees Raj Kul" list varies from region to region. Colnel Tod gave up the effort compile a list which did not contradict the other. I would be surprise if Shoorsaini dynasty which ruled Mathura upto Gazni and Ghori invasion would not be one of them. The name of the dynasty is inscribed in the Choansat Khamba iron pillor in Bayana. I find your statement "The ruler of the clan giving his daughter to a non Rajput makes not much difference" interesting. This means if a Rajput gives his daughter to a dalit Hindu, he would still be able call himself a Rajput? Strange logic indeed, to say the least. Some would call it situational ethics but hypocrisy is more appropriate word. Thanks.--142.142.25.83 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sen is a totally different sub-caste which is came under Kayastha Caste. If Saini's are malis then how there medals (Army) are more than Jats/Jaat? I'm not comparing to Rajput b'coz rajputs have too many sub-caste under the tile rajput. You can also think it if Mali's start fighting then what wouldbe future of INDIA!!! Rest you are a wise person mr.karan.

98.200.90.193 (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not under estimate the medal tally of Jats. It will be easily more than any other groups based on their overwhelming numerical superiority. They outnumber Sainis by 1:25 ratio on all all India basis. You could say Saini medal tally is proportional to that of other martial groups in reference to their numbers. The comparison with other martial groups has to be based on proportionate numbers. Otherwise, the comparison is not fair. I must also caution you not to belittle the contributions of other groups which are not represented here. Contribution of Jat community against Muslim invasion and British rule are outstanding and second to none. Lets us write about other groups respectfully. This is an encyclopedia and not a social networking website. Please keep your commentary relevant to the topic. We should not be discussing Jats here on this page unless they are relevant to the topic. They are not relevant to this topic. Thanks.--142.142.25.83 (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sen was a suffix used often by Rajput rulers. And India is a democracy who can stop the malis from fighting ? and Mr Scholar, do you want me to provide evidence to show that the Rajput sub castes were classified as "Martial raceor group" and not agriculural. Karan112 (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Malis and Sainis were clearly designated as separate groups in all Census reports of British era. Malis were not enlisted as 'Martial Race' while Sainis were. Don't forget there are Malis who call themselves Kachwahas too. So somebody can wrap this libel around your name as well using your own broad brush style. Refrain from statements which can be easily contradicted by references because they undermine your credibility and waste other people's time. Here is the link to colonial period record from Punjab government gazette. Punjab Alienation of Land Act explicitly enlists Rajput as agricultural tribe

http://punjabrevenue.nic.in/cust8.htm

Scroll down to the end of the page. It says: "(n) Rajputs—An essentially agricultural tribe following custom."

For your information, in order for a group to be enlisted as a 'Martial Race' it had to earn the status of 'Agricultural tribe'. 'Martial Races' were hand picked by British from the broader group of 'agricultural tribes'. For this reason Khatris did not make it to this list despite having a kshatriya ancestry. You need to understand the British administrative policy before making assertions which can be easily disproved. Kindly do not post in this reference again unless you have some reference to back up your claim. Your personal opinions are insufficient to continue this discussion further. Thanks.--142.142.25.83 (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is more on the topic. There is no way on earth you could refute this reference. So save yourself the effort for going to look for a refutation. It was impossible for a tribe to be enlisted as a 'Martial Race' unless it was enlisted as 'Agricultural Tribe'.

"A district-by-district classification was published. The 'agricultural tribes' included were Ahir, Arain, Baluch, Dogar, Gakhar, Gujar, Janjua, Jat, Kamboh, Khattar, Khokhar, Labana, Mahton, Mughal, 'Musalman Jat', Pathan, Quereshi, Rajput, Saini, Sial, Syed, Thakur. The siginicance of 'agricultural tribes' is that ones so notified were synonymous with the 'martial races' which the army almost exclusively recruited from.

Source: The Indian army and the making of Punjab, pp 105, Rajit K. Mazumder. Orient Blackswan, 2003

Thanks

--142.142.25.83 (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

First, the statement about the Ruler givving his daughter is regarding giving them to other rulers, second, all you are doing is finding the loop holes in my statements, also, could you be kind enough in providing the oroginal text of the inscription to prove that the dynasty's name is Shoosaini and not Shoorseni and that the Sainis in Punjab are from this Shoorseni ( whom u call Shoorsaini ) clan. And the malis use Kushwaha and not Kachwaha. Karan112 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Again you are not aware of your illogic. The other ruler in question is not even a Hindu but a 'malechha' who was a destrpyer of Hindu temples and openly an enemy of vedic religion which defines the very idea of kshatriya which you claim to be. Dalit Hindu is still a Hindu and a believer in Vedas. A non-Hindu ruler who is essentally defined as a 'malecha' is worse than a dalit Hindu on a relative scale from the standpoint Vedic shastras. You think that you could give your daughter to a Malecha and still call you yourself a Kshtriya or Rajput, while another Rajput who marries a non-Rajput Hindu somehow becomes lesser of a Rajput. This is the irony! Hello! Wake up! You don't see your own loophole. That is why somebody else had to point it out. Even your Tomar friend from Kota is also aware of this basic fact. BTW, Maha Rana Pratap who is considered to be the epitome of Rajput identity had rejected your convenient argument too. He had declared all Rajputs who gave daughters to Muslims as 'contaminated' or 'polluted'. Accordingly, some would say that your linage ceased to be a Kshatriya or Rajput, as per Hindu Dharma Shastras, the day you accepted servitude of 'malecha' like Ghori. This is not necessarily my reasoning but somebody who identifies Rajput ideal with Rana Pratap could easily reach this conclusion with a good basis.

Here is an interesting correspondence between Prithvi Raj Rathore and Rana Pratap which speaks to this point:

The hopes of the Hindu rest on the Hindu surya yet the Rana forsakes them. But for Pratap, all would be placed on the same level by Akbar; for our chiefs have lost their valour and our females their honour. Akbar is the broker in the market of our race; he has purchased all but the son of Udai (Singh II of Mewar); he is beyond his price. What true Rajput would part with honour for nauroza [the Persian new year's festival, where Akbar selected women for his pleasure]; yet how many have bartered it away? Will Chittor come to this market ...? Though Patta (an affectionate name for Pratap Singh) has squandered away wealth (on warfare), yet he has preserved this treasure. Despair has driven man to this market, to witness their dishonour: from such infamy the descendant of Hammir (Maharana Hammir) alone has been preserved. The world asks, from where does the concealed aid of Pratap emanate? None but the soul of manliness and his sword.. The broker in the market of men (Akbar) will one day be surpassed; he cannot live forever. Then will our race come to Pratap, for the seed of the Rajput to sow in our desolate lands. To him all look for its preservation, that its purity may again become resplendent. It is as much impossible for me to believe that Pratap has called Akbar his emperor as to see the sun rising in the west. Tell me where do I stand? Shall I use my sword on my neck or shall I continue my proud bearing?

Pratap replied to him:

"By my God Eklinga, Pratap would call the emperor Turk alone (the word 'Turk' carries a pejorative flavour in many Indian languages) and the sun would rise in the east. You may continue your proud bearing as long as Pratap's sword dangles on the mughal head. Pratap would be guilty of Sanga's blood, if he was to tolerate Akbar. you would have the better of it, no doubt Prithviraj, in this wordy quarrel."

Kushwaha is just another way of writing Kachwahas. Some malis use Kachwaha while others write Kushwaha. Kushawaha is actually purer form of the term coming supposedly from "Kush" , Lord Rama's younger son.

Shoorseni and Shoorsaini are two different ways of translating the same Sanskrit and Prakrit words. Shoorsena becomes Shoorsaini or Shoorseni in Prakrit. Some Enlish translations use one form while others use the alternate spelling. They mean the same and point to the same word in vernacular. Here is a text from another source regarding Shoorsainis' link with Bharatpur/Mathura region whiere Chonsat Khamba inscription was found:

Before the formation of Bharatpur state the capital of Sinsinwars was at Sinsini. Sinsini earlier was known as 'Shoor saini' and its inhabitants were known as 'Saur Sen'. The influence of Saur Sen people can be judged from the fact that the dialect of the entire north India at one time was known as 'Saursaini'. Shoor Sain people were Chandra Vanshi kshatriyas. Lord Krishna was also born in vrishni branch of Chandravansh. A group of Yadavas was follower of Shiv and Vedic God in Sindh. Some inscriptions and coins of these people have been found in 'Mohenjo Daro'. ' Shiv Shani Sevi' words have been found engraved on one inscription. Yajur Veda mentions 'Shinay Swah'. 'Sini Isar' was found on one gold coin. Atharva Veda mentions 'Sinwali' for Sini God. The above group of Yadavas came back from Sindh to Brij area and occupied Bayana in Bharatpur district. After some struggle the 'Balai' inhabitants were forced by Shodeo and Saini rulers to move out of Brij land and thus they occupied large areas

Source: http://www.bharatpuronline.com/history.html

I hope the above reference will satify you in case you are sincere and not pushing this discussion with defamatory intent. Thanks.

--142.142.25.83 (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Saini's sub-castes

Surnames of Saini's (Hindu and Sikh)

Adhopia, Agarwal, Annhe, Attar, Badwal, Banait, Banga, Banga, Banwait, Baria, Basuta/Basoota, Bawal, Bharal, Bhati, Bhela, Bhele, Bhogal, Bhowra, Bimbh, Bola, Bondi, Budwal/Bodwal, Caberwal, Chandan, Chandel, Chande, Chandolia, Chaudhry, Chayor, Chelley, Chepru, Chera, Chere, Chibb, Chilne, Dadwal, Dakolia, Darar, Daurka/Dhorke, Dhamrait, Dhand, Dhanota, Dhek, Dheri, Dhaul, Dhole, Dhoore, Dhorka, Dola, Dolka, Dolle, Dulku, Fharar, Gaare, Gahir, Gahunia, Galeria, Galhe, Garhamiye, Garhania, Garore, Gehlan, Gidda, Giddar, Gidde, Gillon, Girn, Gogan, Gogia, Gogiaan/Gogian, Golia, Haad, Hadwa, Hansi, Hans, Hoon, Jagait, Jaget, Jagit, Jandauria, Jandeer, Jandor, Jandoria, Janglia, Japra/Japre, Joshi, Kaan, Kabad, Kabarwal, Kabli, Kadauni, Kainthlia, Kalia, Kaloti, Kamboe, Kamokhar-Khatri, Kapooria-Kapoor, Kapoor-Khatri, Kariya, Kataria, Keer, Khabra, Khad-Khatri, Kharga, Khargal, Khatri-Andhaia, Khelbare, Khobe, Khube, Khute, Kuchrat, Kuhar, Kuhare, Lata Longia, Lularia/Loyla, Manger, Maheru/Meharu, Masute, Matoya, Mundh, Mundra, Nagoria, Nanua, Nawen, Neemkaroria, Pabe, Pabla, Pabme, Pama, Panesar, Pangeli/Panghliya, Panthalia, Papose, Partole, Patrote, Pawar, Pharar, Pingalia, Pundrak, Puria, Saggi, Sahnam, Sair, Sajjan, Sakhla, Salaria/Salariya, Sandoonia, Sangar, Sangowalia, Saroha, Satmukhiye, Satrawla, Satrawli, Satrole, Savadia, Sehgal, Shahi, Sinh, Sona, Sooji, Sukhayee, Tabachare, Tak, Tamber, Tandoowal, Taraal, Tarotia, Tatla, Tatra, Tatri, Thind, Tikoria, Togar, Tondwall, Tonk/Tank, Toor, Tuseed, Ughra, Vaid, Vim, Virdee.

Who are Reddy? Saini's sub-caste or other?

-Clarkpoon (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I request you not post this in the Saini sub clan section. Their source remains unclear and it is possible that more than half of them are not Saini sub clans but those of other groups who claim to be Sainis but are not. If you post this then we will have to enforce strict rules to require a citation from a reliable source for each one of these clans. Thanks for your co-operation.--142.142.25.83 (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And no Reddys are not Sainis.--142.142.25.83 (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

But i read somewhere that Reddy of South claiming descent from Saini's or Yadav. I'm searching for it.

There a lot of people and websites writing nonsense about Sainis and other groups without any basis. If you take another loose approach, then every caste can be traced to some other. Reddys are a separate group. I have checked in all the scholarly works. There is no connection between authentic Sainis and Reddys. Please discuss your source here before posting it on the article. A credible source in this reference does not exist. I would be surprised if there is. Thanks.--142.142.25.83 (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Sub-caste Salaria? Are thay Saini's sub-caste?

Clarkpoon (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a refernce is also provided for it. See Geographic Distribution section. They are the largest Saini clan in Gurdaspur. --142.142.25.83 (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a Video song on YouTube which proved Saini's are Rajput.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF_kpcivucM

Rajput Hunde Surme - Sunny Salaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.102.248 (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid a 'proof' like this is inadmissible. Pop culture is notoriously unreliable source for articles of this nature. Lets focus on citations from Reliable sources only. It is Bollywood and other pop stuff in media which has prevented proper representation of Rajput history and identity by larger-than-life glamourization of questionable clans and rank distortion of some historical events like Jodha-Akbar marriage, etc. With regard to Rajput ancestry and character of authentic Sainis (found only in Punjab and North and some parts of Haryana now) Gurdan Saini's reference as commander of Rajput force, Chonsat Khamba inscription and testimony of noted post-colonial social-anthropologists (Sukhvir Singh Gahlot, Banshi Dhar, et al who are also cited by Encyclopedia Britannica) is a sufficient academic proof. (the only kinds of proof admissible on wikipedia). The pop culture stuff like above proves or disproves nothing. Thanks.--142.142.25.83 (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr.142.142.25.83 Salaria is a Rajput sub-caste Then what about Saini? -59.177.101.163 (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sainis differentiated from Punjabi Khatris

Punjabi Khatris are a community who were largely concentrated in West Punjab before the partition of India. They are largely a business community but are also said to have had kshatriya ancestors who later took to commerce during the period of Turko-Pathan ascendancy. They are primarily said to be of Suryavanshi lineages although some Chandravanshi clans may have also merged with them over a period of time. Apart from Bhatias, who are technically not Khatris, but a similar mercantile community, none of the Khatri clans claim Yaduvanshi descent. They are different from Sainis in the sense that Sainis are exclusively Yaduvanshis and were largely based in the rural areas, and involved in agriculture. Khatris on the other hand were rarely involved in agriculture.

Khatri clan name 'Sahni' is sometimes mistaken for 'Saini'. Although both communities were strictly endogamous until a few decades ago, the inter-marriages between Sainis and Khatris are not now unheard of, especially in the bigger cities and Punjabi diaspora abroad.

Another similarity between Khatris and Sainis is that both communities have a composite religious identity. Like Sainis of Punjab, Khatris are also split into Sanatani, Arya Samaji and Sikh affiliations. Like Sainis, within some Khatri extended families people of all of these religious persuasions can be found living in perfect concordance, although such mixed families are probably more common among Sainis. Before the advent of the bitter Singh Sabha-Arya Samaj polemic in Punjab, both Saini and Khatri families would devote at least one son to Sikhism. However in recent times this composite religious identity has largely lost its ground to the puritans on both sides of the religious divide.

Gurdas Singh of Sujjon/Rup Singh of Bhagpur

Somebody has made a mention of one Gurdas Singh of Sujjon in the section " Known Saini Freedom-fighters and Matryrs". I have placed Gurdas Singh of Sujjon in the parking lot on Discussion page, pending reference verification. We will repost it in the above section whenver the reference is available from a reliable source.

The reason is that we have taken great care to keep every statement in the article backed up with reliable secondary source references. Unless a statement is duly supported with a verifiable reference, it is good to follow a conservative approach in permitting new content which is not properly sourced. This is required to keep the article reliable and academic-grade.--Internet Scholar (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

--99.233.132.217 (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This text is parked here till references are verified. References have been requested from the editor who posted it. Thanks.

Rup Singh (Saini, Badwal) son of Chaudhary Uttam Chand, Fought the World War II, 1947 war against Pakistan and 1961 war against China. He is the Nephew of Sardar Banta Singh martyred of World War I whose name is on the India Gate in New Delhi. He earned many medals during his service to maintain the dignity and the integrity of the Indian Army and his son Surinder Kumar Saini also served Indian army. Rup Singh is presently residing at San Jose, California in USA.

Sursena/Sursen

Saini caste has got nothing whatsoever to do with Rajputs, or Sursens. There is no Race named Shursaini, which this article has managed to invent. The British never considered saini as a martial race, but after a serious manpower shortage developed from about 1916, 75 new classes of recruits were also tried, such as punjabi brahmins, khatri sikhs, dogra jat and sainis, which were all mercantile and agricultural castes. Furthermore, no Rajput will intermarry among saini's. Its becoming a serious issue, and its quite tragic how everyone has started claiming descent from Rajputs and ancient kshatriya kings.

Thanks for your opinion but references contradict it. Jalandhar Land Settlement report of 1880 says Sainis (quoted in the article) were recruited in Army, especially in Cavalry. Same is stated in Julludhur Gazetter of year 1900 as a tribe from which the army recruited . So your 1916 cut off year holds no water. The source you got that info from about Sainis is obviously faulty and written by someone who had not consulted local records of Punjab recruitment centres. With regard to Rajput identity, it has remained a controversial and debated subject even to the present time. The Rajput origin and ancestry claim in this article is properly sourced with citations from non-partisan scholarly publications. If you want to challenge those publications, then this is not the right forum for it because it will be deemed as original research, not something wikipedia rules allow. As regards intermarriage, this is a spurious criterion because many groups have stopped intermarrying with each other for variety of reasons. Maybe certain Rajput or Kshatriya groups stopped intermarrying with others because they were serving invaders and intermarrying with non-Hindus, thus making them - in their opinion- 'polluted'. Endogamy and hypergamy has been a distinguished mark of kshatriya lineages. So your point is a mute one.

The groupings mediated by British colonialists as "Rajput" are no longer considered authentic. Here is what a Cambridge university research papers says on the issue:

"Most British officials perceived lineage and caste structures as timeless rigid hierarchies, based on elaborate and mechanical networks and rules of status, precedence and rank. Also, officials were puzzled when families evoked more than one level of identity for members of the same clan often called themselves by different names. What they did not understand was that most lineages subscribed to multiple identities, which overlapped and coalsced , working against an absolute definition imposed from above . Although official analyses perceived the flexibility of these heirarchies in face of overwhelming evidence, they seldom recognized the historical circumstances shaping Rajput identities... Ronald Inden, for example, argued that colonial officials and ethnographers, obsessed by constructs such as caste, kinship and the "village community" which they felt ordered Indian society, viewed most social and political forms as fixed and timeless essences. This understanding not only underlay colonial policies but also influenced the construction of caste identities such as that of the "Rajput" However, there were variations , contradictions and tensions within British constructions of caste identities...The decline of pre-colonial political culture and the concomitant rise of colonial power in north India had great significance for the construction of caste identities. Many studies have testified to the fact that religious and community boundaries were reinvented in nineteenth century in response to radically altered forms of politics, public spaces and nature of the state."

Source: Embattled Identities: Rajput lineages and the colonial state in nineteenth century North India, Introduction, pp6-12,Kasturi M, Oxford University Press, 2002

So there is no simplified , cut and dry and fixed definition possible of what comprised Rajput class as you seem to be suggesting. The definiton continues to be challeneged and debated even till this day and you would atleast acknowlege that this issue a lot of nuances, The positions of community organizations mean a little in this regard because each community has its own definitions excluding others. The only decisive input in this regard is that of reputable academics. This article quotes them with accuracy and transparency. If you have problem with them, it is suggested you challenge them in academic journals of acceptable standard. To do that here will be deemed as original research. Also, please do not use language or tone that might be deemed as derogotary, insulting or libelous by this or other groups, because then they tend to respond in kind creating an envirnonment incoducive for scholarly work. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions and cit·ed references. The British first created the martial race theory by writing what is very well known already, that the Rajputs, Jat Sikhs, Hindu Jat, Gorkhas, etc are the martial races of India. Of course it was already a well known fact, because these are the castes with their clans, who had a representative who ruled as king and chief in the feudal society of India. With a few exceptions here and there no where will we find any exception to this fact. So after the shortage in the recruitment, the British started recruiting non martial classes such as, Brahmins, Christians, Sainis, etc. This seemed to be quite successful, and it showed even the non martial classes could make fine soldiers, which brought a lot of criticism to the martial race theory. Fact is race or caste has got nothing to do with casting a man as brave or otherwise. (Recruiting, drafting, and enlisting: two sides of the raising of military forces - By Peter Karsten)

Recruited marital classes since 19th century

Don't know whether you quoted Peter Kartsen in verbatim or paraphrase. I could not locate this exceprt in Peter Kartsen's book since you did not provide page number. Allow me to quote him for complete accuracy:

" Most of the nearly one million men who served at one time or another were drawn from traditional martial groups - Sikhs, Dogras, Rajputs, Muslims and Gurkhas. After a serious manpower shortage developed from March 1916, 75 new classes of recruits were also tried. Many of these (such as Punjabi Brahmins and Christians, south and west Muslims, Awadh Rajputs, Saini and Khatri Sikhs, Nandbansi Ahirs, Tamang Gurkhas and Dogra Jats) were from classes closely related - in social, religious or geographical terms- to groups already recruited;..."

Recruiting, drafting, and enlisting: two sides of the raising of military forces , pp120, Peter Karsten

Hope this misquotation of Peter Kartsen was not intentional and in any case this source is obviously wrong and unreliable with regard to Sainis. Following publications produced by colonial government of Punjab and produced much earlier than March 1916 record that Sainis were actively recruited in army since 19th century. These are primary texts and supersede any secondary literature written negligently:

"The tribes chiefly recruited are - Sikh and Hindu Jats, Kambohs, Ahluwalias, Mahtons (Rajput), Sainis...."

Punjab District Gazetteers, Volume XIV A. , Jullundur District with Maps, pp 269, 1904 , Lahore, Printed at the "Civil and Military Gazette" Press

This document was published in 1904, which is 12 years before the date you mention. So your source is obviously wrong. Infact no traditionally "Rajput" tribe is mentioned in the list of recruited tribes. Mahtons were not classed as Rajput in any of the censuses of British India, although this source acknowledges their claim . Because of persistent academic and legal challenges this classification system was dropped by British government in 1931 (why this classification system was flawed has already been pointed out through the Cambridge university citation provided above). The only "Rajput" tribe enlisted for recruitment in 1904 Julundur Gazetteer is that of "Musalman Gorewaha".

"Men of this tribe not seldom take service especially in cavalry."

Final report of the revised settlement of the Jullundur District in the Punjab, pp 84, W.E. Purser, BCS, THE "CIVIL AND MILITARY GAZETTE" PRESS, Contractors to the Punjab Government, Lahore, 1892

This report was authored around 1880. We know this because 1883 census also mentions this source. The above is an exceprt from 1892 publication. This again proves your source wrong.

Further , read following the citation read by Governor General of Punjab for Subedar-Major Jagindar Singh 'Bahadur', who was a Saini and was decorated with two major gallantry awards Order of British India and Indian Order of Merit for his 'conspicuous bravery' on 17th November 1914 in the Battle of Loos:

" ..for his conspicuous gallantry in action on the 17th November 1914 when with a party of Sappers under the command of a British Officer he was always to the fore and led his men with great determination into the enemy's trenches. Subedar-Major Jagindar Singh, Saini Sikh of Kheri Salabatpur in Rupar, gained the 2nd Class Order of Merit at the battle of Loos in Belgium for striking leadership and conspicuous bravery in action after most of his company and all but one British Officer in his regiment had been killed or wounded. This officer was also awarded the 2nd Class of the Order of British India for distinguished conduct in the field."

"War speeches (1918), pp 129, Author: O'Dwyer, Michael Francis, (Sir) 1864-, Subject: World War, 1914-1918; World War, 1914-1918 -- Punjab Publisher: Lahore Printed by the Superintendent Government Printing

According to this citation Subedar-Major Jagindar Singh was already on the rank of Subedar-Major in 1914, this means that he was recruited much before the First World War which began in 1914 (much before March 1916) . It would have normally taken a native recruit atleast 6-7 years to have reached this rank. He must have been recruited in atleast 1907 or around to have reached the rank of Subedar-Major by 1914 when the fisrt world war began. So your source further loses its credibility. I am sure you would revise your opinion about its validity after reading the above slam dunk rebuttals from more direct sources.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by History Sleuth (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC) --History Sleuth (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)--History Sleuth (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)--History Sleuth (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)--History Sleuth (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Precolonial martial classes

Now if one looks at our society very closely, one would find that all Kings, chiefs, Sardars (Sikh, Maratha, Rajput) of the former princely states of India, who represent as the rulers of their clans since before Christianity, are all mainly Rajputs, others being Sikh(Jat Sikh), Hindu Jat, Maratha. Of course one would find exceptions to this as well, because some small Jagir's were created by the British which were not ruled by Rajputs, but Brahmins or in one case a khatri. Now of course if a Brahmin is king, that might class him as martial, same goes for the khatri chieftain, he became chief because of his own merit.

The Jat Sikh, Rajput and the the other traditional martial races, comprised the armies of India as soldiers, generals and kings, since time immemorial. Now of course there is an exception to this also, because one would find that in some cases that the General in command of an army might not have belonged to the martial society or a warrior clan, but might have been a Brahman or a khatri, or even a foreigner etc, but this was only because of his own merit and hard work, not because he represented a particular warrior clan (Chauhan, Parihar, Tanwar, Sandhu, etc).

It is also a fact that all the kingdoms of India whether, Sikh, Rajput, Jat, Maratha, were ruled by the clan heads, who formed the martial society of these Kingdoms and also of India, and these clans are well known even this day. All the generals and minor chiefs such as Thakurs and Sardars of these kingdoms represented a particular warrior clan, who lived in that Kingdom, formed the martial society of that kingdom and also the army.

You mean "martial clans" which saved their positions by sending their daughters and sisters in Muslim harems? Not meaning to be sarcastic here but you should not ignore this pertinent fact.

You are entitled to your opinion but it is not supported by references again. You have oversimplifed Indian social system and largely interpreted it through the prism of 'martial race' classification system that British introduced, projected backwards in history. In any case, even if it were to held valid for argumentation sake, the perspective is again deeply flawed because many academics of note have considered Sainis as descendants of Rajputs who fought as part of Rajput armies. Gahlot , a scholar of Rajput background, and a scholar quoted even by Encyclopedia Britannica on historical issues, has infact described them as Rajput soldiers of Prithvi Raj's army who became agricultural to avoid conversion after the fall of Rajput empire. You should have seen his reference before writing the above. Here it is again provided in case you are sincerely inquisitive:

"Famines and Wars have been great shifters and as a result of them this community which was mainly agricultural was attracted to other areas with better facilities of cultivation and grazing. They in the course of centuries, gradually migrated to parts of Punjab in the nortn and Malwa, Gujrat and Maharashtra country in the south. In the Punjab in the sub-mountainous region the community came to be known as 'Saini . It maintained Rajput character despite migration."

Castes and Tribes of Rajasthan, pp 107-108,Sukhvir Singh Gahlot, Banshi Dhar, Jain Brothers, 1989

"The Muhammadan invasions drove a wedge through the Rajput principalities of the eastern Punjab. Some of the Rajput clans fled to the deserts of Rajputana in the south, others overcame the petty chiefs of Himalayan districts and established themselves there. A few adventurers came to terms with the invaders and obtained from them grants of land. The Sainis trace their origin to a Rajput clan who came from their original home near Muttra [sic] on Jumna, south of Delhi, in defence of the Hindus against the first Muhammadan invasions"

Hugh Kennedy Trevaskis, Rajput clan movements- The land of the five rivers..., pp 99-100

You obviously also missed the reference to Gurdan Saini who was the topmost general in Rana Hamir Dev's army. Further, you probably also have not read about Gulab Singh Saini's reference who was the chief commander of Ballabhgarh princely state and led Raja Nahar Singh's army against East India Company. His family had a large jagir in Ballabhgarh, granted by Nahar Singh's ancestors, which was confiscated by the English after he was hanged along with Nahar Singh in 1858 for leading the mutiny. Recently a public square in Chandni Chowk was renamed after him. Another prominent Saini jagirdar was Nanu Singh Saini who liberated Maharaja Ala Singh from Sunam prison. His Jagir in Phulkian Riyasat was the second largest estate that any Sardar owned there. There were atleast two Saini generals in Maharaja Ranjit Singh's army , namely, Jarnail Sangat Singh (after whom the village Sangatpur is name in Gurdaspur dist.) and Jarnail Mota Singh . Only Hari Singh Nalua and Sham Singh Attari are remembered by most as they were most famous but there were others too whose names are generally not mentioned.

Sadly, everyone seems to be glorifying oneself in this age, hence all these claims of being martial. But one can see clearly, who forms the martial society in India, and the answer is the martial clans of India, and not a particular caste who can just claim to be one.

Sadly, it is equally true that denigrating other clans out of jealousy is also an Indian trait which colonialists exploited to its hilt and is manifest here on wikipedia too. This page has been in the past vandalized by me-only-high-class nuts from Indian sub continent. When they find that all the statements of this article are well-referenced then they start attacking sources themselves in frustration. They may be right or wrong but this is not the place where you can pitch personal opinions against citations. This is just not permissible. Editors can only have exchanges on the basis of citations from reliable publications. Wikipedia is not a debating society.

Peacock terms have been studiously avoided in this article and no attempt has been made to understate this clan's involvement with agriculture. You can provide examples if they have been used anywhere. Lastly, the Kshatriya classification for this clan was only mentioned after checking government and academic publications, including 1931 census report. Connection with Raja Shoorsen is also sourced from publications of Anthropoligical Survey of India , in addition to the citations from SS Gahlot and Hugh Kennedy Trevaskis both of whom are reputable and neutral academics who consider this clan to be descended from Rajputs. If you have problem with these academics, it is suggested again that you challenge them in appropriate research journals. This is not the place to do that. History and sociology of India is obviously more complex than your opinions above make them sound. But you are entitled to them. No grudges. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Bhagrathi Community of Western UP

The user w:Special:Contributions/Abhijeetrana5665. has sought to interpolate unsourced edits for many month. His latest one is given below. It was removed from the main body of the article because, it is not sourced properly and contradicts references cited in article. The point raised by him can be easily addressed. So it has been moved to discussion page.

"But the "Saini" community found in western UP does not have any resemblance with Mali community of Western UP.Sanis of western UP are differentiated from Mali and they are known only as Sainis from the past when the history of Sainis started. Peoples are not confused between "Sainis" and "Malis".They know that both are different communities. And the sentence written above that in UP people started using Saini surname only in 1940 is totally false in context of Western UP because the forefathers of Sainis of Western UP were known only as Sainis from the last well known centuries. All other tribes of western UP knows Sainis as a kshatriya caste distinct from Malis. Even one of the most prestigious Kshatriya caste "Rajputs" call Sainis as a Rajvanshi kshatriyas. In Western UP Sainis are landlords and economically and socially well developed caste like they are in other states. Sainis of Western UP haves glorious history like the other kshatriya caste and they enjoys the same social status like the other kshatriya castes. So Why are you merging the Sainis of Western Up with Malis. Your research about Sainis is not fully true and need more evidence. Please stop misguiding peoples about the Saini community of Western UP."

--History Sleuth (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Misguiding? Hmmm...who is trying to pull wool over the eyes should be apparent by following references. Here is a citation from the publication of Anthropological Survey of India published in 1994:

"Likewise, the Malis living near the Ganga, Saharanpur and Haridwar are known as Bhagrathi Mali or Gola Mali...However, the Sainis do not consider most of the these related to them"

Source: People of India: Haryana, pp 431 , Kumar Suresh Singh, Madan Lal Sharma, A. K. Bhatia, Anthropological Survey of India, Published by Published on behalf of Anthropological Survey of India by Manohar Publishers, 1994

Poorly sourced information

All I want to say is that by writing things totally inconsonant with the ground realities including Hisotry, we will end up looking like fools in everybody's eyes.Attempts at sanskritisation are good, but they should not be through grandiose aggrandisements. We are OBC people and we should be happy about it. There is no use talking about past which never existed and in the process loosing our claim at the job reservations also which is far more important to the community presently than surmised trivia of the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.114.228 (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you care either to register and create some edit history or at least identify yourself more honestly so that we could learn more about you intentions? You have been posting misleading information which is not sourced properly. You claim to be a Saini but cannot be one because no genuine Saini would like to be classified OBC or could write self-deprecating stuff that you are posting. The problem is you have not even researched properly and writing according to some agenda which is quite apparent . For your information, Saini community in Punjab, J & K and Chandigarh (UT) is not a part of OBC...nor is community engaged with horticulture there in any form or ever was. It is a leading land owning group in many districts and ranked on top in the local caste heirarchy (Shiv Ratan Mehta, 1972). Punjab is where 90% of authentic Saini population lives...the rest are just Malis who renamed themselves as Sainis. So stop posting nonsense. There is no authentic Saini community south of Ambala district of Haryana. The communities that claim to be Saini south of Ambala district and in all other states such as Rajasthan, UP, MP, etc is actually Mali coummunity who changed their name to "Saini" after 1930 (reference posted in the article) to gain access to army jobs in British era as Sainis were enlisted as a Martial Class.

You have just picked up some academic jargon like "Sankritization" from some book you haven't read few pages beyond and are trying to sound like some scholar of sociology here. The earliest official records of Sainis link them to Mathura whose ancient name is Shoorsena or "Shaursena". Nobody has invented this word here, it is part of their earliest folklore as recorded by British (Hugh Kennedy Trevaskis, 1928) and their own informants of the same era or earlier like Chaudhary Shiv Lal. All references have been provided in the article including the reference of Dr. Pritam Saini, a leading history scholar of Punjab and member of Indian History Congress.

Unless you have references to push your motivated thesis , I recommend you take your know-it-all soap box on some other forum. This is an encylopedia not some place to post originial research, or pretension thereof, with some political motive which you have made no effort to conceal in your post above.

Too bad if all this makes you look like a fool as you claim. Nothing to rule out the possibility somebody here may not be one after all. G'day.--History Sleuth (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Brother, 
 Before making comments like Sainis are not classified backward community in Punjab , haryana and chandigarh , at least some corroboration with facts might have been made. Be kind enough to go through the following links of Government website(s) and refresh your kindself knowledge:-

http://ncbc.nic.in/backward-classes/chandigarh.pdf SERIAL NUM 53 http://ncbc.nic.in/backward-classes/haryana.pdf SERIAL NUM 66

http://ncbc.nic.in/backward-classes/punjab.pdf   SERIAL NUM 61
Hope you wont raise doubts about the whole of govt after that. 

Your source is obviously wrong or contains poorly researched information as will be evident from following citations from reputable sources. Central lists are not binding in nature and states make their own assessment. And there is a good chance that they have confused Saini with Mali who also have been using Saini last name since 1930-1940...these confusions happen all the time GOI reports. Authentic Sainis have very small numbers compared to this broader melange of OBC groups who assumed Saini identity since 1930s or about. Gurnam Singh commision in Haryana also recommended state's Rajput community to be in OBC...does not mean the state implemented the commission's decision. Final determination is made at the state level. Sainis lasted in OBC category in Punjab for barely 10 days in 2009 before the decision was revoked by Punjab government after Badal's political stunt failed. Here is more accurate picture through newpaper reports. Some excerpts given below which prove that Sainis of Punjab (i.e. authentic Sainis) are not in OBC as have been claiming:

"Rajya Sabha member Ambika Soni said today that the government had treated the Saini community in a callous manner by circumventing procedures while declaring the community backward. She said faced with the fact that the notification would not stand scrutiny as neither the State Backward Classes Commission nor the Deputy Commissioners had been consulted and the government now had decided to keep the decision in abeyance....However, once the notification was passed, there were protests from many sections of the community which felt the new categorisation would give a bad name to an otherwise progressive community. The main among those against this was the Ajit newspaper head Barjindar Singh Hamdard. In the face of the criticism the government decided to keep the notification in abeyance till final view emerged from the Sainis."

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090302/punjab.htm#5

Here is another newspaper report proving your source wrong, incomplete or ill-researched:

Punjab government backtracks on decision on Saini community By Balwant Dhillon on March 1st, 2009

http://www.punjabnewspaper.com/wordpress/2009/03/01/punjab-government-backtracks-on-decision-on-saini-community/

Termination of OBC Teachers Notice to admn Tribune News Service

"Both of them belonged to ‘Saini’ caste, but ‘Saini’ is not counted as OBC here. "

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wSqJYeybb7QJ:www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100313/cth1.htm+saini+obc+chandigarh,+Tribune&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Here is official OBC list of Punjab state. There is no mention of Saini here: S.No. List of Backward Classes/Other Backward Classes in Punjab S.No List of Backward Classes/Other Backward Classes in Punjab 1 Aheria,Aheri,Heri,Naik,Thori or Turi 37 Dhosali, Dosali 2 Barra 38 Gawala, Gowala 3 Beta, Hensi or Hesi 39 Gadaria 4 Changar 40 Jhangra Brahman 5 Chirimar 41 Hajjam, Nai/Sain 6 Daiya 42 Jogi Nath 7 Gwaria,Gauria or Gwar 43 Khati 8 Kanjar or Kanchan 44 Rechhanad 9 Kurmi 45 Khanghera 10 Nar 46 Kucha-band 11 Rehar, Rehara or Re 47 Thathora, Tampora 12 Ghirath including Chahng and Bahti 48 Lakhera, Manihar 13 Kahar, Jhinwar or Dhinwar 49 Vanzara 14 Ghasi, Ghasiara or Ghosi 50

http://obcreservation.net/ver2/reservation-mainmenu-9/how-to-get-mainmenu-107/59-punjab.html

I hope you would not need to spread libelous or ill-researched information which you would see caused the outrage in the community as per the media report, unless you are looking to create trouble purposefully. Your intentions and identity still remain suspect.

Secondly,Your kindself may delight in premises like anyone else not having gone through texts containing words like 'sanskritisation' ( which for me is so common a word as to be known to almost any lay person of normal graduate background ) yet the reality is that it would take almost an illiterate India for having any reason(s) behind that.You just keep on harping about being "Rajputs" when we were not, and in the process you have not left any stone unturned to contrite upon history.If at all, you could have written about us being an independent identity rather than trying to project us as offshoots of some other castes, and that too in totally disgraceful manner like we lost and so and so on .Fact is , not one of the Saini ruler existed as per history and borrowing alludes from mythology is making it all look so pathetic afterall. We wd like to rise through our efforts rather than Blah. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumit garg1 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Garg, all the statements in the article are backed from citations from reliable sources. If you have problem with the citation, it would be more suitable that you raise them in apporpriate research journal where you get more receptive audience. This is no place to post original research however acceptable or questionable it might be. If you have any problem with any given citation, it could be discussed in wikipedia's framework but not your personal opinions. This is not a debating society and editors have only so much patience with unsourced or poorly sourced opinions. You claim to be a Saini , yet sign your name as "Garg". "Garg" is not a Saini but a Baniya clan. So you have been lying that you are a Saini and have been trolling all along. I hardly think that even "Sumit Garg" is your correct name...you are just using this sockpuppet to vandalize this well sourced article with some agenda. What is your real caste? It is impossible for you to be a Saini as you have been claiming. C'mon, lets come clean on this.

--History Sleuth (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A very good reply by History sleuth. Just because bunch of politicians with motivation to create a vote bank does not make a community backward or forward. Up till now saini youths have been competing in general category with other general castes. As said by History sleuth, this article has citations/references from reliable sources. So these sarkari babus can't change the history of a clan or caste by declaring any caste a backward or forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.206.55.1 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont know what to say on this.We definitely are included in OBC by the govt notification and there had been persistent demand for the same as well based on social as well as economic consideartions.As for the so called babudom et al, it must be remembered that we were highly persecuted people in northern India prior to independence and were given very menial treatment by the higher up castes , a fact which can be verified from any of the old timers or even any of the books of the Raj era.Succour has come only after Independence through govt initiatives.Previously ,Only one or two of us were given some intermediary posts , just to facilitate the selfish ends of the then ruling elite.I think it is even more wrong to alineate a big chunk of us as a separate caste (Malis)for self aggrandisement puposes but otherwise based on pure blah. I also fail to understand this Rajput fixation of the writer given that the Rajputs in themsleves have nothing high to boast of.They occupied only the barren and desolate tracts of northern India and were decidedly overthrown by The Marathas and Jats even in their own hinterlands.They were the very first to go to the servitude of the Mughals as well as the Britishers and for this reason alone could save their skin.Marathas like Scindia and Holkar etc walked up straight in to the territories of even the most famed ones of the Rajputs and grabbed it up .This included the present day Jodhpur(Rathores) as well as Udaipur(Sisodias).Had it not for the kings of Rajputana having immediately sided with the Britishers upon their arrival on the scene, they might not have been possesing much to talk of.The combined forces of Rajputana were defeated by the Jats at Pushkar and the Rajputs only had the mughal armies as support to resist them once the heat got turned on upon them.History of Punjab is muchtoo well known but we will rather leave it to the glory of the whole religion united (The Khalsa) then the Jats(or Jatts) alone.Here it is noteworthy that as long as any social group maintained its distinct identity and fought for it tenaciously, it got rewarded.Sikh religion became a distinct ruling identity only once the Jat majority left the Hindu fold and merged into it en masse giving it a separate , large and cohesive(at least at the material period of time)identity.On the other hand, whenever it is decided to settle for the lower status amongst the already established group, it(the group) was left bargaining for the worst possibles given that the ibid group itself has agreed to the supremacy of the other group and hence its(other group) better positioning for all relevant purposes.Baseless claims like we were defeated and enslaved Rajputs etc will not bring any grace to the community. Need of the hour is to rise with all efforts possible as a separate and cohesive identity rather then by starting name calling amongst ourselves and fragmenting the whole thing much to the glee of others.Rather , let the other communities feel proud to associate with us through our standings.Its Sumit Saini here with my friend Ashish Garg and the contribution of Ashish to the current dialogue is Zero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumit garg1 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, all your discourses notwithstanding, your edits are in violation of wikipedia editorial policies as none of them are backed up with references or adequate context. You cannot be a real Saini as you claim. No Saini can post the stuff you have posted above. Proof that Mali started using "Saini" last name only around 1940 is posted in the article with proper attribution. You have trouble beleiving the references from a reputed newpaper like Tribune about Sainis not being OBC in Punjab. Further a verifiable list of OBC in Punjab was provided which does not figure Sainis as follows Official OBC List of Punjab Yet you persist in mischief with political agenda in mind. Sometimes you claim to be Saini but mysteriously sign your name as Garg. The proof that Sainis are seprarate from Malis has been posted from records of British era only. There are multiple scholarly references available from the British era literature testifying to this. You are herewith warned not to vandalize this article with unsourced or poorly sourced edits anymore. You have also attempted to change the text of the citations in the article. Please refrain from this as it is considered serious and obvious case of vandalism. You can entertain yourself with your own personal opinions but none is interested in them here and none can be posted without proper references, weight and context. Also be cautious in the use of word "We" to troll into this article. A lot of Malis use the last name "Saini" outside Punjab. There is good likelihood you are one them and are trying to destroy this article because Sainis do not consider Malis a part of them. It can be easily estalished from the tone and content of your posts you are neither a Punjabi nor a Saini. You are either Mali or some other caste. Here is a proof from one of the works of British era (1885) clearly identifying Sainis as distinct from Malis:

"The most industrious are the Rain, Mali, Saini, Lubana, and Jat...The Mali are chiefly gardeners. The Saini occupy sub-mountain tracts, and grow sugar-cane largely. Their village lands are always in a high state of tillage."

-Source: The Cyclopædia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia, Commercial Industrial, and Scientific: Products of the Mineral, Vegetable, and Animal Kingdoms, Useful Arts and Manufactures, Edward Balfour, pp 118, Published by Bernard Quaritch, 1885, Item notes: ,Original from Oxford University

Now, don't try to question this reference. There are a number of others from works of British era. No where does this English scholar say that Sainis did gardening. Nowhere it says Mali is same as Saini. He clearly identifies them as separate groups. Scroll up to section title "Origin of Sainis" which gives all references from reputable secondary sources about Rajput ancestry of Sainis.

Rajput character and anecstry of Sainis

Sainis have not written these books. So stop trying to pull wool over people's eyes with your personal opinions and using "We" ( as already pointed out you are either Mali turned "Saini" or some other caste). Each one of these references can be discussed but not your personal theories. Familiarize yourself with wikipedia's editorial policies. All of your edits so far qualify as vandalism. Here are some ground rules:

• WP:POINT
• WP:TLDR
• WP:NOR
• WP:BLP (Groups)
• WP:NOT#FORUM
• WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND
• WP:NOTOPINION
• WP:SOAP

--History Sleuth (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Dear sir, All I want to remind your kindself is it is equally wrong for you to try and represnt your views as true spokesman for all the Sainis . Others are there and the truth is out there for all to see. Pl for God s sake dont go into surmises without any solid base. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumit garg1 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I think the comments made by Mr Sumit Garg are perfectly alright. He seems to me to be a man with perfect knowledge of the things in present concern .It's no use blah blahing about the status of Saini community of the past in a manner which is far from true and trying to declare them the kings of India in the past when the facts are just the opposite and every one knows that at the time of Independence the saini community was totaly opressed as pointed out.Even now, the real high castes discriminate against them occasionally.Linking Sainis to mythological shoorsaini etc points in this direction only as a few misguided people are trying to portray the community as children of the unknown and unsubstantiated and thus making a fun of the whole community.Only a fool would think that all the so called shoorsainis ended up to a size of handful and that too in this opressed state.It is well known that successful warriors prospered and bred whereas the lower lots got marginalised.In the intrest of the community such people are advised to keep their blah to themsleves only or they themsleves shall be responsible for their actions.The community is definitely backward and badly needs reservations. 59.95.107.167

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/59.95.107.167

Sumit "Garg" is not a Saini but a Mali and so are you, his sockpuppet. Your points have already been addressed above and admins are aware of the vandalism you have resorted to so far by removing references and posting unsourced personal opinions. You are obviously unhappy with the references proving that Malis appropriated Saini identity after 1940 and you have chosen to attack them by posting unsourced drivel that no authentic Saini could identify with. Please stop this concern trolling. You are not a Saini. Who you are is already exposed. --History Sleuth (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Post of of user 75.65.250.195 is given below:

Now whether sainis need reservation or not is everyone's personel opinion. But you can not discredit the work put up to write this article when the author has put in the references as well. Now if you ask your ancestors, then they will tell you that sainis were not opressed at all during independence era. For your information the past president of Shiromani Akali Dal was a saini from lasara and there was a Saini takhat Jathedar. So your conclusion that warriors prospered and bred is not true. As India at one point was ruled by aborginals which were defeated by Aryans and the former got marginalized. Then Aryans were defeated by Scythians and kushans and later by mughals. Mohammedan rule made Indians mute and they were oppressed for centuries. They had to taxes to visit there own temples. Then came the british. No one knows what condition the present generations of Akbar are! But it was shown on the Indian channels in the past decade or so that they are in a very pittyful condition. So only a fool can make the comments that you have or Sumit garg had made. Read those references first and then make the comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.250.195 (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

User 75.65.250.195, this Sumit "Garg" and user 59.95.107.167 are one and same (either sockpuppets or meatpuppets). He is not a Saini but a Mali posting from MP (Bhopal and Indore). There is no point explaining anything to him or debating with him. He is here with an agenda, i.e to push Malis into Sainis by proving that somehow latter were oppressed as well. There are tonnes of references in the article from reputable sources (including peer-reviewed research journals) proving this "Garg" guy wrong. But you will never be able convince anyone who is blind by choice. Not only Labh Singh Saini the first president of SAD before independence , Dewan Chand Saini of Gurdaspur was decorated with the title of Rai Bahadur in 1920s and also given Member of Order of British Empire. British never gave such titles to people perceived to be from lower classes because they feared backlash from stronger local tribes. Chaudhary Dewan Chand was the son of Chaudhary Fateh Chand who was a vazeer (minister) in Chamba state in 19th century (so much for "oppression"). Before paritition in Hoshiarpur district, Saini were not only the Zaildars but the Tehsildar of Hoshiarpur was also a Saini. People of all castes reported revenue to these Saini Zaildars who controlled revenue collection of the Zails of Hoshiarpur and Dasuya . Retired Saini soldiers from British Indian Army owned as much as 20 villages in Lyallpur. Such great was their influence these these areas were called Saini Bar, with a Saini as their Zaildar (Chaudhary Bhola Ram). No other caste has ever dominated Sainis in Punjab where 90% of authentic Saini population lives. The family of Nanu Singh Saini owned 27000 Bigha estate in Patiala state which was the second largest estate that any noble family owned in the princely state of Patiala. Just a few examples...there are many more. So take the words of this "Garg" guy with a pinch of salt, understanding his agenda and frustration.

He calls people like Chaudhary Shiv Lal, Dr. Pritam Saini and Dr, Barjinder Singh Hamdard (Editor of Ajit), all highly regarded Saini personalities and leaders of Punjab, as "misguided" and his own Mali propaganda as the "voice of Saini community". First of all, he is not a Saini but a Mali. Second , Malis already have reservation. So getting Malis reservation is not his concern. His main agenda is to push Malis into Sainis by berating the latter and attacking all references which clearly show Malis as separate from Sainis and as a community which appropriated Saini identity in 1940s to gain access to army jobs. Just look through his ruse and the rogue logic he has consistently pushed posing as a Saini. Editors are being asked to disregard the works of people like Chaudhary Shiv Lal (an undisputed leader whose picture adorns all Saini Kshatriya Sabhas of Punjab), Dr. Pritam Saini (a history scholar of international repute), neutral and non partisan socilogists of international standing like SS Gahlot, Shiv Ratan Mehta et al and highly regarded Saini leader and journalist like Dr. Hamdard. They are believe his soapbox instead! Sainis don't talk and sound like him. This guy is not who he claim to be. He is a Mali or an OBC Jat trolling as a Saini. There is no point in feeding this troll anymore. Just watch his edits and don't let him get away with the vandalism in the main article which he has persistently resorted to.''. --History Sleuth (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of personal comments being made here. Might I remind everyone of one of the cornerstones WP:AGF. If this is not adhered to, I will be forced to start issuing warnings. Note also, no one, race, caste, group, religion has exclusive rights to edit articles, and articles based on WP:POV will be edited. If parties cannot agree on particular issues then I suggest WP:Mediation. Thanks --Sikh-History 12:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may add most respectfully here SH, you are preaching to a choir . No regular editor of this article has objected to this article being edited per WP rules. There is a WP predicated protocol that proposed to edit this article per WP guidelines and you may revisit that conversation here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saini_people#Clean_up_tag

If somebody is patient and has good intentions following of this protocol should not be very difficult or objectionable. That said WP also has strong regulations against sockpuppetry vandalism, and soapboxing, etc. If any editor wishes to edit this article per WP rules, he or she is more than welcome but the way to edit the article is by use of appropriate tags rather than blanket removal of well sourced passages and tampering of references which this IP user has resorted to quite audaciously (clear and obvious cases of vandalism). Please also bear in mind Wikipedia also has strong rules against libel and the regulations like WP:BLP could also apply to groups. I hope you stick around . We can work to make this and Jat people article even better. Thanks--History Sleuth (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Jat people article still has some major flaws in that Jats keeping pushing WP:POV due to their obsession with being labelled as Kshatriya and Rajput. Saying that, this article needs a lot of work and subheadings to make it coherent. Maybe Dbachmann can help? Thanks--Sikh-History 16:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

They are not wrong to certain extent. There are a number of clans among both Hindu and Sikh Jats which can be easily proven to be of Rajput descent. Some quick examples are Brars of Patiala, Siniswars of Bharatpur, Randhawas,etc. At the same time there are a number of Jat clans which have no link to Rajputs. It is a complicated subject where both ethnology and history are intertwined in a complex relationship. It is important such issues are dealt with due nuance , respect and context, keeping in mind that some of these issues could qualify for WP:BLP treatment, and also given that the groups being written about are still living and breathing entities. With regard to the headings of the present article are concerned, feel free to discuss them here (if you perceive WP:Peakcock or WP:Weasel) and we can work with them using WP:Consensus. Lets avoid any radical and unilateral edits before making a sincere attempt to discuss. Thanks again for your interest in this article. Regards.--History Sleuth (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

18/June/2009 Length of article

I fear that this wikipedia entry is becoming too long in length and may get tagged as a result. Can we ensure that only the core details are in this entry and any additional information is in a new entry. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.190.40 (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2009‎ (UTC)

Origin of Sainis

Note: Please keep the discussions respectful and refrain from making inflammatory statements about other groups which might cause others fairly or unfairly to retaliate in the like fashion. If you think your argument is based on fact and reason, inflammatory and insulting language only proves its weakness, not to say that it is against wikipedia rules. Thanks in advance for co-operation.

Agricultural Rajput Classification

Please note that the classification Sainis as an agricultural Rajput group is based on the following citations which are highly authoritative (both authors being cited by Enyclopedia Britannica and published in peer-reviewed journals). They are being quoted below in full. The expurgated part can be found in full in Rajput Mali article:

Ref. 1:

"The process began after the fall of Prithvi Raj Chauhan (the last Hindu emperor of India) in Vikram Samvat 1249 (1192 AD). When the Rajput soldiers of his army fell against Sahabbudin Ghori and the empires of Ajmer and Delhi were destroyed , some of the Rajputs became captives and could see no way of saving themselves except embracing Islam and they became known as Ghori Pathans. Some of the Rajputs were let off on the recommendations of a Royal gardner who represented the captive Rajputs as Malis. Others left carrying arms out of fear and took shelter in other communities....Famines and Wars have been great shifters and as a result of them this community which was mainly agricultural was attracted to other areas with better facilities of cultivation and grazing. They in the course of centuries, gradually migrated to parts of Punjab in the nortn and Malwa, Gujrat and Maharashtra country in the south. In the Punjab in the sub-mountainous region the community came to be known as 'Saini . It maintained Rajput character despite migration. ' In other parts, it came to be called by name of 'Kshatriya-Mali' (Rajput Mali)."

Source: Castes and Tribes of Rajasthan, pp 107-108,Sukhvir Singh Gahlot, Banshi Dhar, Jain Brothers, 1989

The first one unambiguously provides proof that:

1) Sainis are a tribe of Rajput descent who took up agriculture after Muslim invasion to avoid conversion;
2) The agricultural community, which came out of Rajputs and was known as "Sainis" , maitained its Rajput character in Punjab. (this could only mean that they continued militancy and maintained their tribal consanguinity despite being in agriculture).
3) Sainis of Punjab , although sharing a similar historical narrative, are distinct from Rajput Mali community, which is found in Rajputana and other part of country. Please note that even this latter community despite having taken up agriculture continued to be classified as a subcategory within Rajputs (see Marwar state census 1891). Even if Sainis are clubbed with this group for argument sake, the Rajput descent still remains incontrovertible (Note: the source is clear that Sainis have never been known with 'Mali' descriptive in Punjab and have maintained their Rajput character. There are other references available in this respect too that the two groups are distinct and do not intermarry despite having a Rajput ancenstry).

Further there are other sources from other scholars:

Ref. 2:

"The Muhammadan invasions drove a wedge through the Rajput principalities of the eastern Punjab. Some of the Rajput clans fled to the deserts of Rajputana in the south, others overcame the petty chiefs of Himalayan districts and established themselves there. A few adventurers came to terms with the invaders and obtained from them grants of land. The Sainis trace their origin to a Rajput clan who came from their original home near Muttra [sic] on Jumna, south of Delhi, in defence of the Hindus against the first Muhammadan invasions"

Hugh Kennedy Trevaskis, Rajput clan movements- The land of the five rivers..., pp 99-100

Note: The Rajput clan named above is Saini or Shoorsaini (Shoorsen is the ancient name of a Yadava kingdom with capital in Mathura. This also explains the origin of the word 'Saini' from a Yadava tribe.

Yadava Rajput descent & synonymity of terms Saini and Shoorsaini

The Yadava Rajput descent is also corroborated by the following source :

Ref. 3:

"Before the formation of Bharatpur state the capital of Sinsinwars was at Sinsini. Sinsini earlier was known as 'Shoor saini' and its inhabitants were known as 'Saur Sen'. The influence of Saur Sen people can be judged from the fact that the dialect of the entire north India at one time was known as 'Saursaini'. Shoor Sain people were Chandra Vanshi kshatriyas. Lord Krishna was also born in vrishni branch of Chandravansh. A group of Yadavas was follower of Shiv and Vedic God in Sindh. Some inscriptions and coins of these people have been found in 'Mohenjo Daro'. ' Shiv Shani Sevi' words have been found engraved on one inscription. Yajur Veda mentions 'Shinay Swah'. 'Sini Isar' was found on one gold coin. Atharva Veda mentions 'Sinwali' for Sini God. The above group of Yadavas came back from Sindh to Brij area and occupied Bayana in Bharatpur district. After some struggle the 'Balai' inhabitants were forced by Shodeo and Saini rulers to move out of Brij land and thus they occupied large areas"

Source: Encyclopaedia Indica: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Volume 100, pp 119 - 120, SS Sashi, Anmol Publications, 1996/ Alternate Secondary Source: http://www.bharatpuronline.com/history.html

Ref. 4:

"It is said about Balaram-Hercules that he came as a stranger to Greece from outside. (In my opinion he was Bhim of Harikula and Col. Tod also holds the same view). Yaduvanshis ruled here. 'Yehudi' is the distortion of 'Yadu'. In the land in which Saini Yaduvanshis settled, it was called 'Sinai'."

Note: the same page of this work Yadava King Shoorsen or Soor Sen is also described as originator of Saini Yaduvanshi clan.

Source: Ghazni to Jaiselmer (Pre-medieval History of the Bhatis), pp 42 , Hari Singh Bhati, Publisher: Hari Singh Bhati, 1998, Printers: Sankhala Printers, Bikaner

--History Sleuth (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Too long

The article needs to be more precise and so it would be more appropriate for the editors to split it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefirious (talk • contribs) 06:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you point out specifically which particular sections need a clean up tag. Blanket tagging of the entire article without specific inputs on which sections need clean up is totally inappropriate. The article has over 200 references and is generally very well referenced. But quality improvement is always possible. So you need to be precise and specific for any constructive edits to happen in that regard. Also with regard to splitting the article, notability critieria needs to be satisfied for the split sections as separate articles. It is not as simple. Thanks-- original note posted on 20 June 2009 (UTC) . Signature edited --History Sleuth (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Clean up tag

Dear Sir, this is in reference to the article Saini. I would like to bring a few things to your notice. The cleanup tag was put up so that the editors try and make the article more compact and precise. Since the article has been rated as Low on the importance scale by certain reviewers, it would be appropriate of the editors to make necessary changes. A lot of sections need to be split up since it is becoming more and more confusing for the readers. So I suggest you not to remove the tags. I reckon you had not read the edit summary when I placed the clean up tag. As for the references, I might as well have to look into their authenticity as most of the references have no links directing to web pages. Your references might be authentic, but it is always better to verify. We are all making concerted efforts to improve articles on Wikipedia. Please help us in doing so and you seem to be a great contributor. We at the Military History Task force needs people like you. So I would be more than happy if you join the task force and contribute for articles that have been rated ‘High’ on the importance scale. Cheers. Nefirious (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Clean Up Tag

Greetings Nefirious, thanks for leaving some commentary. I would still beg to disagree for a blanket clean up tag. Wikipedia has a number of other available tags that could easily address your concerns and will also provide specificity and meaningful commentary to the other editors to provide itemized responses for quality improvement. As such consider using some of the following tags which would better serve your purpose:

This article has in the recent past subjected to many mean-spirited attacks by vandals. A blanket clean up tag only emboldens the vandals who have targeted this article for various reasons (mostly envy and bigotry). So cut them some slack if some editors appear touchy about tags without adequate commentary.

Reference Verification

With regard to the references, this article quotes them with pin point precesion of exact quotes, publishing houses, and page numbers in most cases. Not all are available online but have been taken from the rare books available in university libraries. If any editor wants to verify their authenticiy, then the onus is on them to do the necessary work of accessing those books and raise objections (where applicable) using the specified wikipedia protocol.

If you have problem with their authenticity please consider using some of the above tags rather than questioning the credibility of all of the 200+ references with the broad brush of a blanket clean up tag. A general clean up tag will be warranted only if it is proven credibly that a good number of them are manifestly false. Not before that.

Regardless of the priority of this article , there is not a single article on wikipedia on which clean up tag can't be placed using the broad brush approach you appear to be advocating. Unless there is a proven case and history of sustained misrepresentations on an article, a catch all clean up tag is not generally warranted.

You are herewith assured that if you use more specific tags like the ones listed above, they will be be addressed expeditiously within wikipedia guidelines. Any content failing specific wikipedia tags will either be edited to conform or be removed altogether. Keeping this article academic-grade and credible is the top priority of the regular editors of this article and a blanket clean up tag does not provide any meaningful feedback to editors to facilitate this. I hope you understand our concern here.

Split Tag

With regard to spliting the article, your point is well taken. All sections which meet wikipedia's notability criterion will be soon spun off into independent articles. Others not passing that test will be retained in the article so long as they are supported by credible references from reliable sources and add relevant context and content to the article.

Regards

Originally posted in June 2009. Edited signature in July 2010.

--History Sleuth (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)--

Satinder Sartaj/Nelly Furtado's boyfriend

Is Satinder Sartaj, sufi singer a Saini or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.58.87.88 (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't know. He is from Bajwara , a village in which there are Saini landownders but there might be other castes there. So can't say. Canadian pop idol Nelly Furtado's ex-boyfriend Jesp--History Sleuth (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)er Gahunia is definitely a Saini. He also has a daughter with her. But this is hardly anything to be bragged about, although it might have some notability given Nelly Furtado's celebrity.--History Sleuth (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought he is from Bajraur village. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.250.195 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. I am not too sure of this.--History Sleuth (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Satinder Sartaaj is a Saini. I confirmed from a friend who lives in his village. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.168.226 (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

He went to school in Patti (near Bohn) which is a 100% Saini village.

--History Sleuth (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bal-E Lasara

Is Bal-E Lasara (Canadian Punjabi Singer) Saini?

SOngs list 1. Kundiya de Sing [1]

2. Desi Desi [2]

3. Tohar Punjabian Di [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkpoon (talk • contribs) 18:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Lasara is a predominantly Saini village near Phillaur (Ludhiana- Jalandhar road). But this is not enough to conclude he is a Saini.--History Sleuth (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes Bal-E Lasara is a Saini. I Met his relative over Youtube [[4]] and she is saying he is a Saini. I Hope this will help on this article. --Clarkpoon (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Clarkpoon....what you are saying might be true. But we would need a reliable secondary source reference to state that this person is a Saini. Original research, even if correct, is not allowed as a citable source by wikipedia. Thanks for your help with this article.--History Sleuth (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

yes Bal e lasara is saini .His name is balwinder singh manak his father's name is s.gurdev singh manak.he is my classmate from class 3rd to 10th. DAVINDER SINGH LASARA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.207.247 (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Manak a Saini sub-caste? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.103.59 (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in Punjab it is. I know now Bal-e-Lasara is Saini but do not have a secondary source reference to include him in the article. --History Sleuth (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Parking Lot for deleted refences which could be used elsewhere in the article

The references are probably resuable elsehwere in the article at an appropriate place. thanks. --History Sleuth (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tidy & split

I've regarded the split request. It wasn't clear what was intended, which is probably why it had remained so long without anyone doing anything about it. Also, this article is very dense with information, but it not organised in a manner helpful to the general reader. It is very difficult to understand what is being said. There are too many references for a single point. One should be enough, and cites should be used in the lead section only if the statement is contentious - the main cites are better placed in the main body of the article where the material will be dealt with in depth.

I have split out the List of Saini recipients of military awards and decorations, as that was clear and fairly straightforward. The article mainly appears to consist of history, though that history is scattered all over the place. I have brought together what appear to be the history sections and attempted to organise them in a chronological manner, though as the writing appears to be more of an discursive essay than an encyclopaedia entry, this has not easy. I may have made mistakes. The history is certainly long enough to warrant consideration for splitting out per WP:Summary style into a new article, leaving an overall guide to the history of the Saini people. I think the summary should aim to be be about one tenth of the current length of the history section. SilkTork *^YES! 11:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Silk Tork, thanks for the good work. You are right the article needs to be split and condensed. Major portions of it have already been split. But it could be condensed further without losing the detail. I will spend some time on it. Some of the content has been added only recently in good faith by IP users which seems to be a copy from another website. I am going to remove it or summarize it.--History Sleuth (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Silk Tork, your suggestion has been actioned. thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Saini/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

All the references are given in the article. You all are in doubt about the references, so why do not you all check the references beforre blaming the article in general and a community in particular. I feel pitty on every body. I do not understand how you can believe a white man's history who was not even aware much about the Indian history and who was a British. His sole aim was to divide indian society. And also foolish people do not even believe in the sacred Mahabharata and indian puranas but believe in Ibbeston and other white authors. as far as Suryavanshi and chandravanshi point is concerned , I think this should be looked deeply because I believe this could have been done by someone to malialign the community's history in general because I have been following this article so closely. Initial subdivision was chandravanshi. So saini haters please chill out, worry about your caste or community and let us write our history.

Substituted at 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)