Talk:Rajput/Archive 2

--69.142.10.64 22:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)==Rajputs==I am a muslim and claims to be a rajput.My parents migrated from india.I can see that rajput are not included in the caste system,But you have to understand that you cannont change your caste. it comes with you.if you dont have a last name you cannot make any document or get admission in a school .I am not proud of my heritage.I pray for the first person in my ancestors who became muslims.If i have a choice i will get rid of my last name.But it is sticking to my back like a devil.If you wants to know the history and enjoy it you have to be impartial.rajput@yahoo.com

"Sons of the Kings"

If the arguement were baseless, then perhaps it would not have stirred so much passion. And perhaps you have clearly misunderstood the basic fact that Rajput does not immediately imply that someone is a king, it is a Jati within the Varna System. Furthermore, once someone belongs to Islam, they should follow the dictates and practices of that faith, but trying to keep yourself on both sides in order to gain priviledges from one group and status from another simply does not work.

The entire concept of Rajputs is one that is not understood by any non-Rajputs but only those who were born and brought in the noble families and bloodlines of the Rajput lineages. Our beliefs and practices, our philosophy, our martial training, the code of ethics, our view of life and death, none of these have been understood or studied by non-Rajputs, and yet it is so simple for the many to simply comment on what we should and should not accept.

It has become en vogue for people to simply claim that they are Rajputs without any understanding of the price that must be paid for carrying such a title. Our ancestors, whose blood flows through our veins, would have wanted us to choose death before dishonour and thus we have remained Rajputs and not subordinates to a foreign land or philosophy.

Although it may be the case that an individual could be descended from Rajputs and be a muslim is very likely since Rajput history dictates the forcible conversions of many Rajputs who were given the choice of conversion or having to witness their families destroyed in front of them. We have the Islamic historians to thank for recording these atrocities which would have otherwise been forgotten to the dusts of time.

Although many Rajputs chose death (such as the great Jauhars of Chittor and Ranthambore), others were subjugated and converted. However, Islam dictates that there are no ties with the ancestral faith or culture of a people once they have become muslims, and thus if someone claims to be a muslim and a rajput, that simply is not being true to their faith.

Islam is a beautiful concept and it should be of the utmost importance for any muslim to be true to his/her faith, but by claiming to be Rajputs as well, is a desire to hang on to their "Prestige" which is only found in the culture of an alien faith being Hinduism. You do not see Persians claiming titles of non-Islamic origins or pre-Islamic status, they have adapted and changed with their circumstance of being a conquered but proud people.

Another question comes to mind, not every muslim can be descended from a Rajput, so why are there no claims of Brahmin-Muslim, Vashya-Muslim, Shudra-Muslim, Buniya-Muslim etc etc etc, and yet you will find so many claiming to be Rajputs and yet do not follow even a thread of Rajput culture or practice. Instead the so-called Rajput Muslim has a vicious contempt for his/her ancestors (if they are Rajput at all) which is not a Rajput trait, furthermore they view Arabs and Turks as being superior to them, which again is not a Rajput trait. Thus, it has also been stated that Rajput is a Status, and that in a sense is true, however it is a Status within the Hindu hierarchy, and for one to claim they are a Rajput and then a Muslim, really does not fit since this status does come with rules, code of ethics, practices and rituals. In order to maintain that status one must live as a Rajput, not simply claim to be one.

Your claims about the origins of Rajput families is also inaccurate. It is sad that we could not have met over a coffee to further discuss this matter. However, as my Muslim friends have stated, it is simply against Islam to claim such a status in order to have prestige over others especially if that prestige comes from a foreign culture which is not Islamic.

Furthermore, your sense of history is highly inaccurate since Chandragupta Maurya was not Jain, he was a Hindu, as was Asoka who then became a Buddhist. (Too bad you were not at the University of Toronto, we could have had a good laugh with your sense of Rajput history).

Your opening statement: “There are many Indian counterparts that counter the fact that there can be Muslim Rajputs. You are fundamentally wrong. Simply Muslim/Hindu refers to faith regardless of your social standing. There have been Muslim Rajas from both the Kokar, Janjua, Bhatti, Rathore and Chauhan clans all Suryavansh and Chandravansh lineages. The term Raja is just that, 'King/lord ruler' of a region. Their faith is regardless of their status. A ruler no matter what his faith is still a ruler, so the question of outcaste or leaving the Hindu faith means that you are no longer King is ludicrous as nowhere in history has this occurred or been accepted.”

First of all to be muslim and claim divine origin from the Sun and Moon is against Islam. Secondly, Rajput does not automatically designate someone as a King, thus your argument does not hold, since this is not what is being discussed. Thirdly, you can loose your Jati and become an outcaste, and this is where the reasoning lies, which you obviously do not understand.

You yourself have stated: “The Varna was very dynamic and many Rajputs were downgraded to Jats during the Hindu reign pre Islamic times on account of their poor service as rulers……”

Thus you also state that one can loose their Jati, and in the extreme case one is an outcaste once they leave the Hindu fold (Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist etc etc.), they are an outcaste, and this is in accordance with the Bhagavad Gita, the highest authority for the doctrine of Rajput codes and ethics.

To simply throw around a few names without credible historical accuracy does not make one's arguement stand solid.

About Rajputs, how should I know? Well, simply because I am one. About the royal houses? Well, anyone from the Royal Houses of Patiala, Nabha, Nepal, Mewar, Nahan, Kashmir, Baroda, Bijawer etc will recognise my words since I have discussed this before with family members, and I am after all their cousin (I will sign off with my designation so that any relative will recognise who I am). On that note, I have other work to get to, as for the Muslims who are confused on their identity, I really feel bad for them.

Rajputs became famous due to our brave resistance and sacrifice against the Islamic Invasion, thus we owe this fame to Islam who gave us a good fight and chose to record our heroic resistance and the defeat of the invaders in Islamic history books. However, if a Muslim claims he is a Rajput, he is simply confused about where his loyalties should lie.

A Muslim should be proud of his/her Islamic culture, religion and society. In the same token, even if one could be descended from an ancestral home which is not Arabic, once one is Islamic, they should be fully committed to Islam and follow the dictates of Islam which simply put states that one should have no loyalties to other nations except Islam. If one claims to be a Rajput, that is seriously putting to question their loyalty and faith towards Islam.

Rajputs can only be Hindu or Sikh, nothing more, nothing less.

-Kunwarji (Ojaswi Kunwar, Projawal Chamba Tara). Kunwarji is GorkhaliGorkhali 17:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

edits by wisesabre

i have added some rajput clan.im not sure they are rajputs clans (as we call them 'Goth')but what i know is that they are eguialent to bhattis(who were already in the list).

2ndly people in Pakistan have mixed there 'goth' with the villages or places where they lived in India. Rajputs in Pakistan some times prefer to introduce themselves according to there places in India

im sure that Naru is a rajput 'Goth' equivalent to Bhattis. you should check about others. الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 18:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Gotra

This is further evidence that there are no Rajputs in Pakistan, since the concept of Gotra/Goth is not understood. If one is a muslim, they do not have a Gotra anymore, and any muslim who is holding on to their Gotra/Goth, is simply holding on to their Hindu roots which is not allowed in Islam.

This is a total conflict of identity. And these "New" clans are not part of the Rajput clans which are listed carefully in Pushkar. Being a Rajput is not some abstract concept. Neither is Gotra, and if some Muslims are claiming they have Gotras, then that brings into serious question on whether they are muslim or are they Kafirs acting as muslims because they hold on to their non-islamic origins.

Also, Rajputs even today never, and I repeat never use their villages as their Gotra/Goth, this is a practice used by tribals and other subcastes, but not Rajputs.

It really makes one wonder, are these guys proud of their non-Islamic ancestry or are they proud to be Muslims? One cannot be both, that would mean that anyone who is proud to be a Rajput and yet is a Muslim would then feel a sense of anger against their fellow Pakistanis since the Rajput would feel a sacred loyalty to the sacred soil of Chittor and would help fight foreign invaders. And yet this concept does not seem to sink into those who would claim to be Rajputs and yet are not willing to even follow an inch of the culture or traditions of the Rajput.

By claiming to be one does not make one a Rajput, especially when these Goth/Gotra do not exist, and neither do these so-called clans.

Furthermore, Rao is a Title not a Rajput clan, that in itself shows that the entire thing about "Muslim Rajputs" is a complete farce.

One should be proud to be a Muslim, but by claiming to have pride in something which is unIslamic is showing disloyalty to Islam and showing that these people wish they were never converted. Rajput history is about resisting the Islamic Invasion, not converting, Rajputs chose death rather than becoming Muslims, thus this idea of "Muslim Rajputs" is a conflict and an oxymoron.

-Kunwarji (Ojaswi Kunwar, Projawal Chamba Tara). Kunwarji is Gorkhali/Gurkhaboy. Gorkhali 17:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply from Wisesabre

You could b right about Rao, im also not sure.what do you think Rajputs who converted to Islam what do they call themselves? Does convertion changes your blood ?We are proud being Muslims. and Islam does not prohabits Clans.Rajput is not a religion.and what about bhattis , my neighbour was bhatti (muslim) and Aziz Bhatti was martyre in 65 war at lahore.

Even if you are right ,its POV to remove my edits on the basis that we are no longer Rajputs.Its not the matter few hundred people, Its the matter of thousands to Muslim rajputs.

I didnt said that Goth=village.

The other way could be like , Ok you are right.There are rajputs in Pakistan who are Muslims.and they are proud being muslim.Where should I list them?Is it now OK? or Not?

be cool الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 07:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

and by the way doesnt Aziz bhattis being rajput and being in army proves that he is rajput :)الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 07:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

My return Reply to Wisesabre

Even in your statement, you are not sure about the term Rao. That simply shows that you are not sure about who is and isn't a Rajput. Rao is a title, but then again, there are Rao(s) who are Vaishyas (business caste: the Jati being Buniyas), thus someone with the surname Rao means nothing.

When Rajputs were converted (and very few were) they were no longer part of the Varna System which in turn had a Jati system where Rajput is a designation of a stratification within that society, but it has to be a Vedic/Hindu society. And thus, is any Brahmins, Shudras, Buniya/Vaishyas were also converted, then they too also lost their designation and status.

If anyone was converted, then yes they lost their status and are now part opf the Islamic society. And thus even if there was a Rajput who was converted, he/she lost their status and is no longer a Rajput, because Rajputs were supposed to choose death before dishonour and if they converted then it was considered a dishonour, and thus they have lost everything. If conversion were an accepted matter then Rajputs would not have been so famous, and we are famous for our resistance against the Islaic invasion. That is where our fame and history lies.

Conversion changes loyalties, while the Rajput is loyal to the land and religion of his/her ancestors (India/Nepal and Hinduism), a Pakistani/Muslim is loyal to the Middle East and Islam. It is a clear conflict of Interest.

I never said Rajput is a religion, but it is part of a religious stratification of society, based of Vedic/Hindu priniciples set down to us by our Hindu ancestors, Rishis, and furthermore clearly stated by our Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita.

Gotra/Goth are derived from our Vedic ancestors (Rishis) and thus since you stated "rajput goth", that in itself shows that you are confused on the topic.

Aziz Bhatti may have had Rajput forefathers, but he is no longer a Rajput, he is a muslim and chose to fight against the land of his ancestors (India) thus even if he was brave, it is not a Rajput trait to fight against your ancestral origins for a foreign power.

Thousands may claim to be Muslim Rajputs, it still does not make them Rajput because they do not follow any of the codes, traditions, ethics, nor do they have the loyalty to our Gods, our Ancestors, nor are they willing to defend the land of their ancestors from foreign invaders.

A Rajput will give up his life but not convert, and thus in his controversial yet astounding masterpiece, Col. James Tod of the British Army wrote his monumentous work "The Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan" in which page after page narrated the sacrifice and bravery of Rajputs against Islamic invasions. Rajputs were the vanguard of Hindu India in the face of the Islamic onslaught.

Now the question comes where do we list the people you are talking about as your last question asks. Well, they are listed along with the millions who were put to the sword during the invasion of India by the Islamic hordes.

I quote:

Will Durant (1885-1981) the well-known American historian,
says in the book The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage page 459:

"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within." Almost all the Muslims of South Asia are descendants of weaker elements of the population who had succumbed to forcible Islamic conversion." )

"The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history". The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride of the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period. "

(source: The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage - By Will Durant page 459).

Also I give you another quote:

Irfan Husain a freelance columnist from Pakistan has observed:

”While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan.

The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after they were buried.

Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster. Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful.

These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage. When these warriors settled in India, they ruled as absolute despots over a cowed Hindu populace. For generations, their descendants took their martial superiority over their subjects for granted. "... And a substantial number of Pakistani Muslims are secretly convinced that they are inherently superior to the Hindus. One irony, of course, is that contrary to their wishful thinking, the vast majority of Muslims in the subcontinent have more Hindu blood in their veins than there is Arab, Afghan, Turkish or Persian blood. Many of the invaders took Hindu wives and concubines."

(source: Demons from the past - By Ifran Husain - dailytimes.com.pk).

And thus, all these people have lost their Hindu identity, castes and Jatis, and must create new ones, but they must be Islamic ones, not ones which have Hindu origins or ties to Hinduism. By claiming to be Rajputs, you are saying that you are all the offspring of defeated Hindu warriors, where is the pride in that?

The people of Pakistan are the descendants of the defeated Hindu populations that were converted by force, this is a historical fact recorded by Muslim historian who were very precise and amazing in their record keepings.

You were wondering if I am right and why I removed the edits you had placed, its because I am a known authority on Rajputs with the Professor Emeritus for Sotuh Asian Studies at the University of Toronto, since I am a Rajput and belong to several of the Royal houses of North India and Nepal.

Although there is much that I do not agree with on the article written about Rajput(s), this issue about Muslims and Rajputs is something that has to be clearly defined, since many imposters try to lay claim to the glories of these warriors which have few parallels in world history.

What I have to say and know is not something of mere armchair scholarship but is my identity, life and soul.

-Kunwarji (Ojaswi Kunwar, Projawal Chamba Tara). Kunwarji ios Gurkhaboy/Gorkhali. Gorkhali 17:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)