Talk:Rajput/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Mughal and Rajput alliances against Sikhs and Maratha empire

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

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

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

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

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

<ref name="SinghFenech2014">Purnima Dhavan; Pashaura Singh; Louis E. Fenech (27 March 2014). The Oxford Handbook of Sikh Studies. OUP Oxford. pp. 50–. ISBN 978-0-19-100411-7.

It also pertinent to note here the comments of Louis E Fenech in one of their book- The Sikh Zafar-namah of Guru Gobind Singh- A Discursive Blade in the Heart of the Mughal Empire (2013) page 146

The Guru certainly draw many facets from Indo-Persian, Indo-Timurid, and Rajput courtly but not all..

, The most important part a simple glance over most of these books will tell that the writers here explain the Sikh centric literature and are more related to Sikh community claims to warrior hood. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

This is from a very notable book WP:Tertiary work of writer Barbara D Metcalf, A Concise History of Modern India (2006), page 33 -

The last guru, Gobind Singh (1666-1708), like other Punjab chiefs, variously used and resisted Mughal rule. Although defeated by Aurangzeb at the end of his reign, Gobind appealed to the new emperor, in vain, for restoration for his lands.

. Unlike what a community traditions of particular community would like us to believe, it points out that most historian view it differently.Akalanka820 (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

What is the point in all these quotes. Is what is written in my first para incorrect? We are not discussing Sikh and Mughal relations - we are discussing Rajput Sikh relations. Did the massacre of Sikhs not happen? Was it not by Rajputs and Mughals together? Did the Rajputs not ask the Mughals for help against Guru Gobind Singh? Are you saying it is incorrect? The Sikhs were warriors. I am not understanding the need for the other quotes you have given. Anyway, too sleepy now. TTYL.LukeEmily (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

These are from Tertiary references explaining how Sikh Guru interactions with Mughal was not any different from what other chieftains had with the Mughals. Regarding Sikh and Rajput thing, I think you continuously forget that there is a community called as "Sikh Rajput". Sikhism is a religion whereas the other is a community which follows multiple religion. I don't understand the logic of creating this thread here, I had removed a two liner in a section of Aurangzeb's policy where it says Guru Gobind Singh criticised Rajput rulers for marrying into Mughals. This in my view is immaterial to this caste page, firstly because it is opinion of a political personality who as per tertiary references shared above was seeking legitimacy for himself ( if anything the comments should be notable to their page and not to this caste page) and even @Fowler&fowler: had explained to you on the opinion part last month.Secondly, the Historians have explicitly explained that these were marriages for political purposes ( like alliances which are common through out the world) and has been discussed in section of Akbar's policy on this page as per WP:DUE ( in that section I had edited added more to the content explaining the context of marriages which actually benefited general Hindus as per one writer). Rest we can re-include that two lines if a very notable tertiary reference of the likes of Barbara D Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India etc mentions it but I cannot see anyone. Lastly, I don't have time to discuss general history here. So, I request for not wasting my time and holidays. Akalanka820 (talk) 08:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The only one wasting time here seems to be you. And no one is forcing you to discuss on wikipedia during the holidays. The Rajput-Sikh relation is mentioned by a tertiary source and it can be expanded by giving details from a secondary source. Are you saying the first para in this section(I marked it assuggested) is irrelevant to the Rajput page?LukeEmily (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

For the last time I am repeating stick to the two liner that I removed here. For Sikh and Rajput. I again repeat Sikhism is a religion whereas Rajput is a community. There is a Sikh Rajput community. The infobox of this caste page makes it clear. Regarding the context of other issues. I have explained how Guru relationship with Mughals wasn't any different to other Chieftains. Akalanka820 (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I cannot find any major tertiary references explaining Rajput-Sikh part at all the way you say. Please quote from book of Dr Barbara D Metcalf's A concise History of Modern India or a book of that level like History of India by Burton Stein, David Arnold etc. So, definitely not any major tertiary reference explains it. Now, this a caste page and not general history page, we do need a tertiary reference for the context. The reference that you quoted talks about Sikh literary works, definitely not Tertiary sources and the writer Dhavan also explicitly mentioned there on the last paragraph how they were part of Sikh claims to warriorhood. So, Historians themselves aren't taking sides here. The Tertiary references of the likes of Dr Barbara D Metcalf explains the Sikh situation like how Sikh Gurus used and resisted Mughals like any other chieftains-, I have provided the quotes for it. I can also post quotes from Burton Stein's History of India which are also on the same lines to Barbara D Metcalf. Even the heading of this talk page section is misleading if we go by some of those reputed tertiary references. Akalanka820 (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged here. Akalanka i don't understand the difference between LukeEmily's addition, which you are discarding, because it's not suitable for the caste page as per your view. On the other hand, you allowed the another Dympies to add something that definitely don't belong to this page here. The content he added tries to establish link between the lichhavi rulers and Rajputs indirectly, to proove the fact that afterall all those dynasty who are considered to be Kshatriya were Rajputs. This is similar to claims made on website like Indian Rajput.com, where they claim each and every dynasty of India to be Rajput only. Aren't you pushing the Pov editors by this selective interpretation.Admantine123 (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Admantine123:, the issue may be much more than POV. First, I have not prevented him from adding anything that is well sourced. I feel he is violating WP:BRD since he is reverting an edit that stood on the page for 4 months. Please see the chart on the right of the page of WP:BRD. The chart says that if the article was edited further and the edit was not a revert a new consensus is reached. And 4 months is a long time when the article is actively edited.LukeEmily (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@LukeEmily:, WP:BRD applies when I had removed all content of last 4 months. That isn't the case I removed just the two liner pov that was added by you, these are part of your continuous additions. Lastly, POV-addition logic is applied to you as you seek inclusion of it, I don't . Recently, some of your contents were removed by multiple editors and those were far bigger than two liner addition that I removed in Aurangzeb's policy. I just removed it after explaining the reasons on talk page. Please do read this earlier comment, this was on a bigger issue here: [[1]], last time I am saying no need to misguide everyone. I cannot see any consensus on sources especially wrt to the two liner content that you added, I had removed. Akalanka820 (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Admantine123:, I have only removed the two liner content that was added by LukeEmily. LukeEmily, themselves made edits/ or content after other edit here- [[2]] . I am not endorsing anyone's edit here, nor taking the sides. Avoid this constant accusations on talk page. Why I should edit war with other editor on a content which I haven't gone into it? The next time you make that accusations I will take this frivolous accusations upto Admin's notice. Secondly, what I can see from edit history of this page is that you had reverted many edits made by other editors in between ( including my revert of Luke content) as well as some grammatical corrections. I have seen this many times on this page and some other pages. I request you to please avoid it. Even last month you had reverted my edit to Luke's version.Akalanka820 (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You are asked by another editor to keep the sentences short, yet you are saying everything that's not even needed here on this talk page. And can you explain why you want to remove that content related to view of Sikh Gurus on Rajputs. I haven't seen the whole edits of past month but presently it appears that you seem to have problem with that line only. Can you explain which things you don't want in the article and why. Admantine123 (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Admantine123,I have explained the reasonings with quotes from tertiary references of Dr Barbara D Metcalf, A Concise of Modern History, at the top of this page. It is easier to see that, only you are finding it difficult. I was told for no long quotes, rest I have summarised it above explaining how Sikh Guru relationship to Mughals was not any different to other chieftains of that time. Akalanka820 (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Alankara820, you said: WP:BRD applies when I had removed all content of last 4 months. That isn't the case I removed just the two liner pov that was added by you, these are part of your continuous additions.. Please can you point to this wikipedia policy that it applies to all content?The tertiary sources are used to decide due weight but secondary sources are used by WP articles. Mughal Rajput alliances are mentioned in tertiary sources. So secondary sources can be used to expand on that. The sikh massacre, attacking Shivaji etc. are all the expansions and examples of Mughal Rajput alliances and consequences. Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources.LukeEmily (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, I have just only removed a two liner in an unrelated section of Aurangzeb's policy. It can be checked from the edit history of the page. I have provided the quotes from a Tertiary reference : A Concise History of Modern India, where writer Barbara D Metcalf explains the context in different manner, unlike the Sikh own traditions. We are already explaining, Mughal-Rajput relationship in various sections as per WP:DUE, where I am opposing it. But WP: Tertiary is important for the context/bkgd explanation here. You are free to quote from reputable references of the likes of Dr Barbara D Metcalf - A Concise History of Modern India, Burton Stein's History of India which summarised the whole context. Why it is difficult for you to understand? Last month itself an editor explained you same thing.Akalanka820 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Whether it is a 2 liner or 20 liner is irrelevant. I asked you a simple question. Let me repeat. Alankara820, you said: WP:BRD applies when I had removed all content of last 4 months. That isn't the case I removed just the two liner pov that was added by you, these are part of your continuous additions.. Please can you point to this wikipedia policy that says WP:BRD it applies to all not some content?LukeEmily (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Akalanka820:, Please cite the link for the wikipedia policy you quoted: WP:BRD applies when I had removed all content of last 4 months. That isn't the case I removed just the two liner pov that was added by you, these are part of your continuous additions.. Please can you point to this wikipedia policy that says WP:BRD it applies to all not some content? It is a simple question. Otherwise, your edits violate the WP:BRD policy.LukeEmily (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Origin of Rajputs and Western Southern India

Many Rajputs originated from South India, such as the Rathor Rashtrakutas, Solanki Chalukyas, and Rajputs such as the Guhil Chauhans originated from southern Rajasthan, the Gurjara Pratiharas and Parmar Rajputs also originated from southern Rajasthan, who later fought the Turks. After reaching Khyber and Potohar, some Rajputs mixed up with Indo Hunnic people (due to marriage relations with Indo Hunnic women) 103.206.177.49 (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Raja putra

Only the son of the king was called Rajputra, it was just a title which became more common in the medieval period, kings came from every caste like Chola, Vaishya, Ahir, Brahmin, Gujar, etc. From and all of these sons will be called Rajputras! This is not a caste, it was just a title, the Kshatriya character was created by Brahmins, they have written the Hindu Kshatriya Gods. राजा वीर (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

What is the source???

What is the source that Recent research suggests that the Rajputs came from a variety of ethnic and geographical backgrounds[29] and various varnas.[30] [31] Tanuja Kothiyal states: "In the colonial ethnographic accounts rather than referring to Rajputs as having emerged from other communities, Bhils, Mers, Minas, Gujars, Jats, Raikas, all lay a claim to a Rajput past from where they claim to have 'fallen'. Historical processes, however, suggest just the opposite". Xyzaksingh (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

Adydryer (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Rajput Or Raaj Putra (Son Of a king) , Warrior, kshatriya.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DreamRimmer (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Unable to edit this article

I was going to add a wikilink to this article but was unable to do so because it appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

There must be a reason, nothing is arbitrary here! This article is protected in order to prevent vandalism and/or disruptive editing! You may request for the changes (you suggest) here; someone having access will check and do the needful and/or respond here! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

K.S Singh as a source

Ekdalian and LukeEmily, would you please elaborate your objections for using K.S Singh's work as a source here? Till now, I considered him among the most reliable scholars for caste pages as evident from the fact that his works have been cited in a lot of caste pages without any objections. His works like The Scheduled Tribes , The Scheduled Castes and India's communities have been published by the Oxford University Press. Reading about his works on Rajputs, I can safely say that he has done an in-depth research on primary sources related to the group and his works can prove to be very beneficial for the article. For example, he is the one who informs us that the very first reference to the term rajput comes in Vidyapati's keertilata (source).

@Luke, it might be convenient for you to ask me to find "better sources" but its not essential that the works published in Oxford and Cambridge covers everything about the group. At some point, we have to refer Indian sources. In your edit summary, you have said that he is not suited for "contradictory issues". May I know what is contradictory here in his statement that both rajput and rajputra have been used in medieval text interchangeably? Please do let us know which modern scholars have contested this simple fact. In your edit summary, you have come up with your usual WP:OR saying Rajputra means prince while Rajput means soldier. Our page itself says that Rajputra is used for nobles numerous times in early medieval era (eg Lichhavi inscriptions and works from Kalidasa, Banabhatta and Asvaghosha.) Also, in Bakhshali manuscript, it has been used for mercenary soldier. Rajatarangini and Varna Ratnakara discuss the Rajputra clan structure without using the term Rajput. Here, Irfan Habib concludes that a Rajputra caste had been formed before 13th century. So no, rajputra doesn't differ from rajput in definition and they have been used interchangeably in medieval text. Please stop creating an artificial rivalry between rajputra and rajput through your OR as both are one and same thing per scholars. Dympies (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Please read User:Sitush/CasteSources#The_People_of_India for more information! Also, you may check a recent objection by an experienced editor Abecedare regarding the same here! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

They have objected to his The People of India to be precise. The statement in question doesn't seem to be problematic as explained above. There have been no contradictions from other writers over it. If we go on treat him this way, we will end up losing a lot of informative stuff from caste articles.Dympies (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You should respect the consensus, no experienced editor would accept it as a reliable source. And obviously, you can't be selective here; your logic hardly makes sense. Why can't you find reliable sources for your POV? Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not being selective, its the other way round. I don't see any consensus on writer as such. Sitush raised his concern over a book named The People of India. Over this, we can't term a writer of Singh's stature as "unreliable" and start rejecting all his works. Dympies (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry; Singh is considered as unreliable! Period. Please look for reliable sources, there's no point wasting time on the source rejected by the community. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dympies and Ekdalian: As per Sitush, the Oxford University Press version is reliable but the Popular press publication is not. I have added Sitush's 2019 quote here: User:LukeEmily/reference. As Sitush said, Singh's first series was plagiarized. That does not put Singh in a postive light IMHO. Singh was simply the editor of the reliable(national) series. Dympies, I understand that you have used the reliable series (not "People of India"). As I said in the summary, multiple modern scholars contradict Singh. And for the reasons that Ekdalian rightly stated, he is not considered very high quality. Also, Singh is an anthropological survey and is good for customs etc(so and so caste have a marriage ceremony that lasts X days etc or so and so caste are vegetarians etc). He is also useful when high quality sources are not available. There is a surplus amount of modern academic material on Rajputs. An adminstrative official, who edits a survey on all castes in India is no match for modern academic scholars who have studied Rajputs and literature mentioning them. Singhs' source more like tertiary source in that regard. It would be like keeping Encyclopaedia Britannica at the same level as work by Norman P. Ziegler although both are reliable. The contradiction is that Rajput and Rajputra are not the same. Nor are they used in literature interchangeably as the literature itself shows. There are specific examples given with different meanings by scholars in the article itself. Is horse-soldier/trooper same as a Prince(Rajputra)? How can a wikipedia article contradict itself using a fringe opinion from a tertiary-like source when opposite opinions are given by scholars? LukeEmily (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

LukeEmily, I understand your concern but you said in edit summary that its a contradictory thing. I haven't come across modern scholars who contradicted that rajputra and rajput were used interchangeably. But it would have been better had he specifically mentioned the period ie late medieval period. Anyways, I am not going to add it now. Dympies (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Rajput is not a real Kshatriya, it is a mixture of many castes, Harsh Vardhan was told by a Chinese traveler himself from a Vaishya Baniya caste, and then some Rajputs were also made from Shudras like Kachchwah Mori solankis chandels tomars and then some Rajputs were made from Brahmins like Guhil pratihars chauhans etc. Rathores are made of Dravid creeds like Rashtrakutas and some Rajputs are made of castes like Huns kushana who are found in Potohar pakistan. Some Rajputs are also mixed with some Afghans tribes, they have nothing to do with Kshatriya Varna, they emerged as a strong union in the medieval period and then Got their history written with their own so called historians

Raja putra sons of kings Gaur brahmin (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2023

Adding an appropriate infobox image related to the article, which is missing/not added until now/currently. Kxnyshk (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: What image would you suggest for this? Actualcpscm (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Although there are many historic photographs documented by both Indian and British sources, the one I'd suggest to be used, would be this one. It's an 1868 published photograph of "Chohan Rajpoots of Delhi" (as documented by the author). It was captured by a British documenting firm called Shepherd and Robertson, in their book titled 'The People of India' by Forbes Watson. Kxnyshk (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Replacement of redirect (Rajputra) with questionable content

LukeEmily, this is in reference to your recent edit to Rajputra which had been a redirect from last two decades. In this edit, you have given a large edit summary in order to justify your action. Its really unfortunate that an experienced editor like you has to be reminded of a basic policy like WP:OR. Your edit summary is a clear violation of this policy. Earlier also, you were using your OR to justify your edit on Rajput page. It seems that you take anonymous messages like this too seriously. The origin section of our Rajput page clearly notes that the term Rajputra has been used by various authors in past with different connotations apart from prince including noble/minister, soldier, horseman, landowner and Kshatriya. JN Asopa is not wrong when he says that the term appears in the sense of Kshatriya in Mahabharata (refer verse शूद्रं वैश्यं राजपुत्रं च राजंल्लोकाः सर्वे संश्रिता धर्मकामाः). You conveniently removed his interpretation calling him unreliable. Anyways, please refer to the "Emergence as a community" section. Various authors including Irfan Habib have talked of Rajputra in the sense of Rajput caste. Almost all modern day scholars agree that Rajput is nothing but a corrupt form of Rajputra. So, there is no need for a separate article named Rajputra when a full-fledged article Rajput exists. The creation of another article on Rajputra is likely to create mess. Therefore, I am reverting your edit by restoring the redirect. Dympies (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that addition for Rajputras (prince) goes on for WP:PUFFERY and violating WP:UNDUE. It is unfortunate that you ignore the cited sources which clearly state the meanings.

Hastings, James (2002). Poets, Sants, and Warriors: The Dadu Panth, Religious Change and Identity Formation in Jaipur State Circa 1562–1860 CE. University of Wisconsin--Madison:

' Rajput ' ordinarily meant a trooper in the service of a chief or a free-lance captain(1960,98); and Dirk Kolff(1990), following both Quango and D.C.Sircar has surely settled the matter with his argument that many Rajput clans came out of pastoralist bands which achieved some degree of landed status in the first half of the second millennium, forming "largely open status groups of clans, lineages, or even families and individuals who achieved statuses as 'horse soldier', 'trooper' or 'headman of village', and pretended to be connected with the family of some king, it became a generic name for this military and landed class(p 71-72)

From Parita Mukta (1994). Upholding the Common Life: The Community of Mirabai. Oxford University Press. p. 51. ISBN 978-0-19-563115-9:

The term 'Rajput' before the fifteenth century meant 'horse soldier', 'trooper', 'headman of a village' or 'subordinate chief'. Moreover, individuals with whom the word was associated were generally considered to be products of varna–samkara of mixed caste origin, and thus inferior in rank to Kshatriyas.

Peabody, Norbert (2003). Hindu Kingship and Polity in Precolonial India. Cambridge University Press. pp. 38–.:

Prior to the Mughals, the term 'Rajput' was equally an open-ended, generic name applied to any '"horse soldier", "trooper", or "headman of a village"' regardless of parentage, who achieved his status through his personal ability to establish a wide network of supporters through his bhaibandh (lit. 'ie or bond of brothers'; that is, close collateral relations by male blood) or by means of naukari (military service to a more powerful overlord) and sagai (alliance through marriage). Thus the language of kinship remained nonetheless strong in this alternative construction of Rajput identity but collateral and affinal bonds were stressed rather than those of descent.

ANANYA VAJPEYI: Oxford University Press

According to the ®Sudrakamalakara, an authoritative Sanskrit text on the dharma of sudras[...] , in the early part of the seventeenth century, the progeny of a ksatriya man and a sudra woman would be an ugra, otherwise known as a rajaputa.Such a person does battle and is expert in wielding weapons, but he must follow the duties proper to a sudra. In Kamalakara’s classification, being a sankarajati, or mixed group, ugras, or rajaputas are sudrasamana, as good as (or as bad as!) sudras.

Norman Ziegler 1976, p. 141:

...individuals or groups with which the word(Rajput) was associated were generally considered to owe their origin to miscegenation or varna-samkara ("the mixing of castes") and were thus inferior in rank to Ksatriyas. [...] What I perceive from the above data is a rather widespread change in the subjective perception and the attribution of rank to groups and individuals who emerged in Rajasthan and North India as local chiefs and rulers in the period after the muslim invasions(extending roughly from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries). These groups were no longer considered kshatriyas and though they filled roles previously held by kshatriyas and were attributed similar functions of sustaining society and upholding the moral order, they were either groups whose original integrity were seen to have been altered or who had emerged from the lower ranks of the caste system. This change is supported by material from the Rajput chronicles themselves.

Doris Marion Kling (1993) The Emergence of Jaipur State: Rajput Response to Mughal Rule, 1562–1743. University of Pennsylvania. p. 30:

Rajput: Pastoral, mobile warrior groups who achieved landed status in the medieval period claimed to be Kshatriyas and called themselves Rajputs.

• The above quotes give the definition or the context in which the word "Rajput" is used. The meaning of Rajputra is prince. Adding the references and multiple lines for Rajputra on a Rajput caste page is ridiculously WP:UNDUE even if one word is derived from the other. One is a caste name and Rajputra has nothing to do with caste, religion or even ethnicity/race. Moreever, they are free to pretend to call themselves whatever they want.

Are you seriously saying that a Rajput person and a prince are equivalent? Its way more accurate to redirect Rajputra to Prince of Wales.

• Asopa: Dympies, you wrote, and I quote , JN Asopa is not wrong when he says that the term appears in the sense of Kshatriya in Mahabharata. Dympies, unfortunately, a historian quoted on the Rajput article disagrees with you and his opinion in the article itself Alf Hiltebeitel  :

  Asopas' epic references are far fetched and unintelligible

  . Please also see WP:HSC and WP:HISTRH and WP:FRINGE.

Moreover, It is unfortunate that you added Asopa all over although a scholarly editor @Trangabellum: told you Origin of Rajputs by Asopa was not reliable source, yet you deleted his comment [here] and said That can be discussed later. Please could you point us to that discussion you had with Trangabellum before you added Asopa as a source on this contentious page?

Pinging @Ekdalian: and @Admantine123: since you discussed this same issue Rajputra with them here and they both disagreed with you.

The page mentions a zillion places in the scriptures for "Rajputra"(prince) however not a word on the page about the scriptures where the word "Rajput(caste)" is mentioned (Skanda Puran, Sudrakamalakara, etc.where the meaning of the word Rajput is given as a warrior who follows the rituals of Shudras. There is no ambiguity, the word being used is Rajput. The interpretation has also been given by scholars.) If this is not cherry picking, I dont know what is.LukeEmily (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

LukeEmily, I think you have completely forgotten the long discussion you had with Akalanka820 here. Ananya Vajpayee is not a good source and Skanda Puran isn't considered reliable either. As far as Asopa is concerned, yes, Alf Hiltebeitel has disagreements with him. But if you read Asopa's book, he has criticised works by western scholars. Different authors can have different viewpoints and that is no big deal.

The quotations of different scholars you posted in this thread are already there in the article for a long time. I don't get what we are discussing here. But yeah, these writers too say that the term rajput is used in various connotations rather than just king or prince and these include soldier, horseman, village headman, landowner etc. The same was in the case of rajputra and it has been noted in our article too. Dympies (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Dympies, That discussion about Vajpayee never ended. F&F had just received a copy of the book and had not read it yet and was going to post a summary. I had pointed to some images but since they were not on wikipedia, F&F did not click on them. There was some tangential discussion related to snake catchers. Vajpayee talks about Rajputisation and does not go much into Rajput history as such. The question was whether it was due or not on the Rajput page - not the reliability. Trangabellumm, some others and I thought it was due. Even F&F suggested a footnote. Vajpayee is a WP:SECONDARY, so as per wikipedia policies , she is reliable given her qualifications and the publication. In fact, she is used on wikipedia in other article. Skanda Puran is a primary source. It cannot be used directly except in cases where WP:PRIMARY is allowed.LukeEmily (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that Dympies is trying to equate Rajput with 'Rajputra'! This is clearly WP:UNDUE and equivalent to caste glorification citing fringe opinion. LukeEmily has already explained above. Thanks LukeEmily for taking the trouble of providing quotes from high quality reliable sources! I have nothing more to add; I completely agree with LukeEmily in this regard. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Ekdalian, this is not a place to push narratives built by caste organisations of various Indian castes. I am myself a post graduate in History, and i am sure that the "Rajputra", which was a term used for nobles of royal blood in many ancient dynasties has no direct link with this Rajput caste. The section etymology itself appears to be WP:OR.-Admantine123 (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Please don't act WP:HIGHMAINT, regarding POV point the same can be applied to POV pushers who got problem with this particular community. It is immaterial to discuss it on talk page.Akalanka820 (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@ Admantine123, Please stop it. This is nothing but WP:OR. Nobody cares if you are a graduate of history or geography. This is an encyclopaedia which strictly follows RS. You can't justify your edits at this platform saying that you are a history graduate!

@ Ekdalian : I never saw you editing the Rajput page before. You never give your rationale on the content dispute but rather give passing comments in support of LukeEmily's and Admantine123's baseless POV. This indicates that you have a little knowledge of the subject. You have always been disrespectful towards me. You don't hesitate in casting aspersions on other users like you did in this edit summary. You are calling me ridiculous for equating rajput with rajputra. Instead, you should have gone through the sources as advised by me in the last comment. All the sources are present in the article itself but you didn't invest some time in going through them. Anyways, let me make it easier. I am now posting some modern scholarly sources which have talked about Rajputra in the context of Rajput:

• Britannica Encyclopaedia (2009) pg 60:

in Rajasthan and central India there arose a number of small kingdoms ruled by dynasties that came to be called the Rajputs (from Sanskrit raja-putra, ``son of a king).

• Warfare in Pre-British India - 1500BCE to 1740CE - Page 75 by Kaushik Roy (2015)

The term Rajput was derived from the word rajaputra.

• India before Europe - Page 115 by Cynthia Talbot, Catherine B. Asher (2001) :

Because the term Rajput is derived from the Sanskrit rajaputra or “king's son,” Rajputs have typically claimed the status of kshatriya or ruling warrior in the four-fold varna classification of traditional India.

• The Emergence of Jaipur State; pg 30 by Doris Marion Kling (1993):

The term Rajput is a corruption of  Rajputra, meaning the son of a raja.

• The Puffin History of the World: Volume 1 - Volume 1 by Roshen Dalal (2014):

Beginning in CE 700 or a little earlier, there were several kingdoms in north India. Many of these were ruled by the Rajputs (from 'rajaputra', sons of kings).

• History of Civilizations of Central Asia Vol 3; pg 172 by Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich Masson (1999):

For the first time Bana (court poet from 606 to 647) in his Harsa-Caritam uses the title of rajaputra, from which is derived the modern term Rajput.

• Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century; pg 32 by Susan Bayly (2006):

In the arid hill country which is now known as Rajasthan, located to the southwest of the Mughals' original strongholds in the Gangetic plain, powerful lords and their arms bearing retainers had been calling themselves Rajput, a title derived from rajaputra.

• The Penguin History of Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300 (2015) by Romila Thapar:

Not only was there a stronger insistence on being of the kshatriya caste, but an additional category of kshatriya status was thought necessary, that of the rajaputra or Rajput, claiming a filial kinship with kings.

• A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century (PB); pg 567 by Upinder Singh (2008):

The use of the term Rajaputra for specific clans or as a collective term for various clans emerged by the 12th century.

• Economic History of Medieval India, 1200-1500; pg 66 by Irfan Habib (2011) :

In the Mahoba Fort inscription (actually from Kasrak near Badaun), in an entry of 1234, the rautas are spoken off as a jati or caste. Rautas is actually the Prakrit form of Rajaputra (modern Hindi Rajput); and a Rajaputra caste had established itself well before the thirteenth century.

• A History of Rajasthan; pg 181 by Rima Hooja (2006):

However, epigraphical and literary evidence would indicate that it was probably sometime during the c.twelfth-thirteenth centuries AD period that the usage of terms like Rajputra, Kshatriya, Rautt and similar words denoting connections with kingship, and Rajput became established as more or less synonymous words....In Kalhana’s Rajtarangini (VII.390) the word rajaputra is used in the sense of a landowner, but if it is read with VII, vv.1617 and 1618 of the same book it would be clear that they acclaimed their birth from the 36 clans of the Rajputs.

This article cannot be written without discussing rajputra which was an earlier derivative of the term rajput. Dympies (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey Dympies, you are simply wrong and I 'll explain why. I never wrote any insulting comment in any edit summary; I edit hundreds of caste related articles, and that particular edit summary was apt! I never said, you are ridiculous! I simply said equating Rajput with Rajputra is ridiculous. Now, coming to this topic, we all know that the term Rajput is derived from the word 'Rajputra'; that's what the sources say as well. In earlier times i.e. early medieval period, probably the royal blood / descendants used to be called Rajput, as indicated by sources. What happened later is known to all who have studied the subject. Due to Sanskritisation, various clans including landholding peasants became a part of the Rajput community! As our article states in the lead only, "According to modern scholars, almost all Rajput clans originated from peasant or pastoral communities." We can assume here that we are talking about the modern day Rajputs, not the medieval or early medieval ones! Therefore, even if the term Rajput originated from the Sanskrit word 'Rajputra', Rajputra and Rajput are not at all synonymous! Rajputra still holds the same old meaning, son of a king. But Rajput is a cluster of different clans, as mentioned above. Hope you understand the difference! Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Ekdalian, Please re-read the above quotations from Irfan Habib, Rima Hooja and Upinder Singh, they have discussed Rajputra as the name of caste. Also, the very first primary source which is considered to have talked about Rajput as a caste Rajatarangini had used the term rajaputra instead of rajput. Dympies (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

And did you read the quote by Hastings above? The descent from ancient Kings is fabricated thats what modern scholars agree on. Yes, they can call themselves whatever they wish. That does not make it true and even Brahmins have documented it( sudrakamalkara). The Rajputs were mobile pastoral warriors who later became sedentary and formed clans. Very similar to the Maratha clan formation except that Marathas were mostly Kunbi(not mobile). And some became Rajput simply by marrying into the right family. Loyalty to the Mughals was a major factor in the caste formation. Bayly has said that the medieval Rajputs may not even be ancestors of the later rajputs. The references are in the article itself. Thus Rajputs were not a group of Princes(Rajputras) who got together and decided to form a caste. That is absurd. Is the meaning of Rajputra(prince) the same as Rajput? BTW, Ekdalian never called you ridiculous neither am I calling you ridiculous. Pretending that both terms can be used interchangably when so many sources give different meanings for the two is ridiculous. LukeEmily (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Fowler&fowler, it is important you should look at this page and the continuous one way style of editing being done here and quoting of similar things again which you had discussed last December on this talk page itself. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Since, this is what S Bayly said in one of her book-

In eastern Gangetic Hindustan, there were yet more high-farming zones where superior rent-receivers could claim to have been following a life of lordly refinement for many centuries. Here the established patricians included many co-parcenors from 'secular' or lokika Brahman groupings such as the Kanyakubjas and Sarjuparins of Awadh; these areas also contained clusters of landed Rajputs. Other Gangetic 'squireens' belonged to the north Indian status group known as Bhumihar, who had achieved a somewhat ambiguous entitlement to be regarded as Brahmans under the patronage of eighteenth-century rulers and their local deputies.<ref>Bayly, Susan (2001). Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age, Part 4, Volume 3. Cambridge University Press. p. 200. ISBN 9780521798426.

. Susan Bayly is also clear in her work that this community was an elite landed gentry. Akalanka820 (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What happened to ancient Kshatriyas?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I could not not find any better place. If Rajputs are not the descendants of ancient Kshatriyas as per the modern scholarly consensus, then what happened to those Vedic-era Kshatriyas? Do any of the scholars quoted in the origins section talk about this? If so, relevant info should be added to the article to give context on the origin of Rajputs. Reo kwon (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

We do not know who is the real Kshatriya, but Rajputs is not a proper kshatriya caste at all, Rajput simply means the son of a king , and in Ramayana Meghnad has also been called a Rajputra. Gaur brahmin (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Kshatriya is such a fort where a special person named Brahmin stay safe, Gaur brahmin (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Kindly add the state of Delhi

In the 3rd para of the article, kindly add the state of Delhi in the below line, which has signicifant Rajput population and was ruled by Rajput dynasties like Tomars and Chauhans before Muslim conquest.

"These areas include Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, Eastern Punjab, Western Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Sindh." Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Typo in Martial race

"According to Amiya Samanta, the marital race"

this should say martial race, certainly Jorganmir (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 18:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixing of lede and origin

The timeline in the lede as well as the origin section was misrepresented by Dympies. We need to fix it.LukeEmily (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You may please go ahead and fix the same, LukeEmily! I 'll take a look as well! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

RFC should be the ideal way to make any changes. I don't see any major changes in the lede recent edits by anyone except for insertion of word "Thakur" there. I think various editors in between seem to have gone through the page based on edit history of it.Akalanka820 (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ekdalian and Akalanka820:, if I remember correctly Sitush/admin and others pointed out two issues (1)the timeline of when the community was formed 2) Rajputra elaboration in origin section. Rajputra is related to the origin of the name of the caste not the origin of the caste itself. I will try to find the talk history and paste relevant quotes here. Strangely, names of texts that have "rajputra" in them are given but the names of texts that have "rajput" in them are left out. We can discuss further.LukeEmily (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments by admin Abecedare here:

... edits such as [3], [4], [5]), but the current version of the article confuses the issue of the origins of the word "Rajput" with the origin of the community (now) referred to with that name. And for the average reader, this confusion would have the effect of pushing back the origins of the Rajput community by a few millennia and tracing it to royalty.

The POV-pushing issue in short: I don't believe that there is much dispute that the word "Rajput" is derived from the word "Rajputra" (lit. son of Kings), and I would easily accept that the latter word appears in texts dating to BCE, or even that the two words were sometimes used interchangeably in the Medieval times. But there seems to be a subtle attempt in the current article to (fallaciously) imply that the age of the word Rajputra is indicative of the age of the community and that's it's literal meaning is indicative of the community's origins. I say subtle because this effect is achieved not through some outright false statement (afaict) but by, for example, positioning the unduly lengthy Early references section, which deals mainly with the word Rajputra and how it has been used, at the head of the Origins section.

By the way, Alf Hiltebeitel, cited later in the article, specifically mentions and dismisses such attempts by, among others, Asopa who is cited repeatedly in the Early references section. To quote from a footnote explaining the types of "contrived evidence" used to derive the origins of Rajputs:

Five types of evidence are prominent:...(5) Sanskrit etymology, especially to misread and antiquate the Agnivmssa (Asopa 1972, 1976, 1, 11, nn. 3-5) or the "solar and lunar races" (Vaidya 1924, 259-300). Attempts to trace Agnivamsa Rajputs directly from Vedic and epic sources (e.g., Vaidya 1924,7; Asopa 1972, 1976, 21-24) are unconvincing, and Asopa's epic references (1972, 1976, 11) are either far-fetched or unintelligible.

— p. 442 of Rethinking India’s Oral and Classical Epics

Abecedare 16:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment by Sitush here

As far as I am concerned, this putative etymology is a figment. We have for years had reliable sources that indicate no mention before the 14C or thereabouts and not even the most trenchant of pov-pushers/sockfarms has suggested the community name is directly related to Rajputra. - Sitush 20:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Added comments by admin and Sitush about these sections.LukeEmily (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

LukeEmily, I was a part of this discussion, as you are aware! This is a really good initiative; and as mentioned earlier, you may please proceed when you get time! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Are rajputs vedic kshatriyas?

A news article was published by communications team on 10 dec 2021, entitled "Genetic history of British Pakistanis mapped for the first time". The genetic diversity within the British Pakistani population was conducted by researchers at "Wellcome Sanger institute, the unuversitt of Leeds and the Bradford Unstitute for Health Research". The research revealed that the genetic structure of Pakistani community castes and groups was shaped over 70 generations or 2000 years. According to this research caste formation and endogamy took place 2000 to 3000 years. The castes started separating 2000 years ago. 10000 families were involved in this project. Rajput caste showed the oldest divergence time from the other castes. Rajput caste became endogamous before other castes. The article says that caste divergence and endogamy can be stretched back to 200 generations. This new study makes rajputs the vedic kshatriyas. 2A00:23C7:1C93:C601:6DDB:2D3B:BA21:2C0E (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry! News articles are not considered as reliable sources, especially for contentious caste articles! You should have provided the link in order to support your view; but anyway, we usually don't include genetics in caste articles as per consensus. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The study was carried out by Leeds university and Bradford university.Are you saying these universities are not reliable?. 2A00:23C7:1C93:C601:5922:A53D:38B:4507 (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if you come up with the original research paper, it won't help! As mentioned earlier, we avoid genetics in caste articles, as per long term consensus! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Rajputs are a living people. This article is creating cinflict in the indian and pakistani communities. Because of this article ,people are making fun of rajputs and name calling. One particular community has raken rajputs to court because that particular community is claiming rajput kings and ancestors as belonging to their community. In this article rajputs should be called descendants of vedic kshatriyas. If people have other ideas thay can be discussed those ideas in some other page. 2A00:23C7:1C93:C601:61FB:A076:224B:24E4 (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

In section of female infanticide - remove marrying with jat girl.

In Pabu singh (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2023

Many Unsourced contents are there let me add the tag of citation required Madhwahari (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Liu1126 (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)