Talk:Origin of Rajputs

There is need to include matter drawn from James Tod's magnum opus which points to a Saka/Huna origin for the rajputs. That theory is perfectly consonent with the Agnikunda legend. ImpuMozhi 07:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is all silly, someone deleted the Gurjar origin theory (which is well supported by most of the historians) from this article and trying to hide the true history of rajpoots from the readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.67.238 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to ImpuMozhi[edit]

Dear ImpuMozhi:

Please read the chronology carefully.

Note that Tod wrote in 1832. He write mainly on the basis on 17th century chronicles, which themselves often relied on oral tradition.

Do you know how many copperplates and inscriptions have been discovered since then? Sanskrit and Apabhramsha books that have been studied and published since then?

You can, if you like, see the photographs of copperplates and inscriptions published by the Archaeological Survey of India. These present direct evidence, engraved in the earliest phases of the era when Rajputs were emerging.

Please tell me, why should I, or anyone else, should give more weight to what Tod wrote over what the direct evidence presents?

Read a book on the history of Hindi literature, any book, and you will find that the scholars agree that Prathviraj Raso in the form it is available, is a much later document, and some of the sections in it are interpolations.

Please remember. Contemporary references like copperplates and inscriptions have come to us exactly as they were engraved. Oral tradition have value, but cannot be presumed to be as reliable. Conclusions drawn on the basis of oral tradition are speculation.

--Malaiya 00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harsola grants of Paramara ruler Siyaka[edit]

These are the earliest known records of the Paramaras. Click to see images.

--Malaiya 01:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I totally agree. Better, direct sources are available on this matter than Tod, who belongs to the court-balladic tradition and is far from NPOV. I was only pointing him out as a source who discerned a Saka/Huna origin for the rajputs nased on traditional and oral traditions. Also because Tod is so much a favourite with many rajputs who take his word as gospel. Better sources for the same conclusions are certainly available. It would be a good idea for you to put up the website of the Harsola inscriptions as a reference. Regards, ImpuMozhi 03:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impumojhi and Malaiya seems like both of you have understood the inscriptions.Please translate it as you understand in the interest of General audience.I could not find those copperplates and many claims which has been made by malaiya upto the sastisfaction of Impumojhi.Why should we Blv them to be the earliest rec. and which century (PLZ quote), Also tell how is it able to challenge Todd's views.Holywarrior 12:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The view of Malaiya is correct many inscrptions found at various places write Chauhan and Pratiharas to be Suryavanshi Kshatriyas and Paramaras and Chalukyas to be Chandravanshi Kshatriyas.The view of foreign origin of thease clans is not true.It might be possible that some Kshatriyas converted to Buddhism at the time of Mauryan empire.They were converted by Sunga kings who were Brahmins.It is not possible Pusyamitra and Agnimitra the staunch Brahmins would include foreigners by Yagna.However chances of mixing Greek, Scythian people with Kshtriyas and others by marriage are there.

--Shivbramh 15:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Rajput[edit]

The term Rajput came in existence in seventh century. The earlier history of period prior to this needs to be expanded with proper references. Thakur Deshraj is one of the prominent Historians from Rajasthan. He has mentioned about Rajputs in his book on Jat history page 113-114, w.r.t Imperial Gazetteer of India Vol 2 (page 307-308),

"Then between the 7th and 8th centuries the old racial divisions passed away and a new division came in founded upon status and function....

The rise of Rajputs determined the whole political history of time. They made their first appearance in 8-9th centuries; most of the greatest clans took possession of their seats between 800 and 850 AD. ... Their origin is a subject of much dispute." (Imperial Gazetteer of India Vol 2 p.308))

When Rajput word was not created and was not in use prior to 9th century how they are related with Rama or Pandawas. We need proper references.

burdak (talk) 04:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://samajsandesh.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gurjar&action=display&thread=170

open the link above ....

is this an article ???[edit]

man .. wht a fucked up aricle is this ???

need a complete rewrite

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain and point the regions in the page because of which you used {confusing}, {copyedit} and {morefootnotes} tags.
--UplinkAnsh (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I go throught it and it seemed like a hindu mythology, it gave me not a single clue how rajputs originated and who were their ancestors. historians believe scythians were their ancestors and there is no mention of this in the article, it isnt a hisotry article its alike one from greek mythology .... apolo and zeus !

and the section tht try to explain the historical (not mythological) origins lacks cohesion making it very difficult to a reader to actually figure out wht was the story at first reading.

It needs work, try woking on it, when done, feel free to remove the tags.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]