Talk:Rajput/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Intercaste Marriages

What is the percentage of inter-caste and inter-religious marriages in the Rajput community? If it is less than 20%, aren't they anti-social? Maaparty 17:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] race/caste?

Are rajputs a race or a caste? Since jatts claim to be a race and also claim to be born of "rajputs?" or rajputs were blueblooded kshatriyas who came under the umbrella term rajput?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokbagga (talk • contribs)

Can you show me---jatts claim to be a race and also claim to be born of "rajputs?",rather reverse has been found to be true as per comments in Archieve 21.Plz don't distort the facts.Holy -- + -- Warrior 10:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


hey I have been told that rajpooths are a caste, (I am one too rajpooth chib from the punjab side of pakistan) I know there are others ghekar and chohan and patee, I am unsure of other muslim rajpooth sub-types, if someone knows please do let me know! It would be nice to know the other sub-types. Jatts for what i have deduced in the pakistani community are land owners, they are from the cast choudary (of which there is 7 sub-types) and are not really related to rajpooths (you need check other websites for any relation i haven't found any) 23/8/2006


the term 'rajput' applies to a social status wielding political power. the rajputs are of kshatriya caste. rajputs might belong to same race 'aryan' but they do not belong do not belong to the same stock of people for example there are gujjar rajputs ( gurjara prathihara) and scythian rajputs but all of them are ultimately aryans.

[edit] soni/maid rajputs!

Could someone edit this article to include maid/soni rajputs of punjab!.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokbagga (talk • contribs)

If you are sure you should edit yourself.Holy + Warrior 13:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

* Mr Bagga do you not mean "Mair Rajputs" of Punjab

Atulsnischal 08:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


ghakkars are no way rajputs,nowhere in any of the anciant scriptures are they mentioned as rajputs,they are of iranian origin and came around the time of muslim invasions,so unless iranians are rajput???????? so please dont put info which is not verified and yes the did rule upto the area from pindi to gujrat in pakistan but were repelled from the onslaught of gujar singh bangi they assume the title raja which does not mean rajput.It just is a way of saying i am a ruler but not rajput Rajput is a collection of the 36 royal houses of india and were brought into presence to defend india from the muslim onslaught Some of these clans are Solankis.chauhan ,bhatti,gurjar partihara.rhatore,bargujar,sisodia,rhangar etc they are from the four different houses 9 clans for each house and there offshoot branches and it is only these that are true rajaputras the rest are just ,MAKE IT UP AS YOU GO ALONG JUST BECAUSE YOU CONTROL A CERTAIN AREA AND CLAIM THE TITLE OF RAJA DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE A RAJPUT YOU CAN ONLY BE RAJPUT IF YOU ARE DESCENDED FROM THE ORIGINAL 36 OR THERE OFFSHOOTS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.231.58 (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meir rajput were not true rajput

They are only a goldsmith.they are not a martial cast.people beat them easily.hi hi hi

[edit] Help Expand the new Article on "Mair Rajputs" from links and references provided

  • Hi included a seperate page on Mair Rajputs, I have provided all references and external links, when you get time read the references and help expand the "Mair Rajput" page. Thankyou
  • I have interconnected the Mair Rajput page to many related categories and pages on Wikipedia
  • I have a request, please refer to External links and write the Mair Rajput page in as much detail as possible in your own words, so that is is copywrite free, include all the families and gotras mentioned too for all of us to see, Thankyou

As per the External Link: http://mairrajputs.tripod.com/notable.html

  • Bagga: "The Bagga claim descent from Rao Chhabila of Delhi whose complexion was bagga, which means white in Punjabi whence this name" (Rose 440). There was also a Bagga chief in northern Punjab. His name was Budh Singh Bagga and he is described by Saggar. "He was the son of Sardar Amar Singh Bagga and was of the Kanhaya Misl. He inherited the family estates in 1795. He held Majitha, Sukalgarh, Bhagowal and other territories in Amritsar and Gurdaspur districts" (Saggar 61). He fought against Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1809 after failing to meet the latter's demands. Ranjit Singh won and confiscated all of Bagga's estates including the three districts of Behrampur, Dharamkot, and Sukalgarh. He left to Budh Singh Bagga an estate at Dharamkot which Bagga held until his death in 1846.

Interesting, I am also a Mair rajput, please help expand the "Mair Rajputs" page.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 07:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

== Mair rajputs are not kshatriya.they are goldsmith only

A/C ==to shastras/smritis goldsmith was sudras.they are in not in army so they are not a martial cast also.people often beat their easily.hi hi hi

[edit] revert war

Editors plz refrain from rv war I would rather request the user who posted [1] on my talk page to edit in stepwise manner without changing whole article in one go citing reasons Thanks.Holy | Warrior 11:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section Famous Rajput

Editors plz include only prominent people.(Idealy there should not be more than 10 names,with single line summary).Do these people merit inclusion?

  • Anoop Chauhan - Senior Marine Engineer
  • Pankaj Kumar Chauhan - engineer and Ph D, A product from IIT Kharagpur
  • Mrityunjay Chauhan - environmental engineer
  • Dr. LS Chauhan - Leader in tuberculosis research.
  • Dr. Vijay Singh Chauhan - cardiologist
  • Anand kumar singh "chauhan"-B.tech._national institute of foundry & forge technology [varanasi]

 HW  11:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why to discuss this? --- Maratha and British suzerainty (18th-20th c.)

As this is very wel known that the Maratha's were trying to protect many Rajputs, this is their internal fightings called marathas for taking help. Other point, If there would have been great differences then there would have no relations right from Mahadaji Shinde (The man who established the Scindia family) till the Madhavarao Scindia with Rajput families. Mahadaji's Mother was from wel established Tanwar Rajput Family. This family is settled in Marathawada region(Since 1550 AD). Currently have relations with respected maratha families. As per History there are no hatred in Rajput and Maratha Families. Marathas always respected Rajputs and had tried to help them in many ways. -- Rajput Maratha.

[edit] Mall sainthwar (rajputs)

This article is on AfD, comments appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Origin of (rajputs)

90% of the roayl rajput dynasties descended from Gujjars. The Gujjar rulers, ruling petty states, who could not face the invaders in 13-th century accepted the services of Invaders. The invaders then called these Kings as Rajputs (And not Kings or Raja).

[edit] Sikh Rajputs: Hinduism, Sikhism and Punjabi Hindu Rajputs

Punjabi Hindus hold Sikhism in high regard, many Punjabi Hindus not only in India but worldwide today visit their local Gurudwaras regularly and adhere to the preaching’s of the Guru Granth Sahib. Sikhism is traditionally seen as a religion of warriors who were protectors of Hindus against marauding Islamic invaders who seeked to convert Hindus to Islam by lethal force. There has been a long standing practice in Punjab which still continuous where Hindu families give their first born son to the Guru to be baptized as a Sikh and join the Guru’s army of protectors. Many Punjabi Rajput families too have been giving their sons to be enrolled in the Guru’s Army and baptized as Sikhs. Thus there are many Hindu, Punjabi Hindu Rajput and Punjabi Hindu Mair Rajput families whose kin are proud followers of Sikhism today. Thus there are many Sikhs who call themselves "Sikh Rajputs" today and still use Rajput family names.

Atulsnischal 23:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment Copied from "Muslim Rajputs" and also from "Rajput Wikipedia": Muslim who claim to be Rajputs

Okay I won't delete the above paragraph again, sorry, I apologise.There are 3 million of us Rajput muslims in Pakistani Punjab,please don't deny us our heritage...indeed we are proud to be associated with Indians in this way. My Muslim clan meet their Hindu clansmen everyear in Delhi..and we promote Love!!! Now, please don't delete mine below either okay? Otherwise this tit for tat will go on until we involve Wikipaedia, okay! Also, Sikhism is not a sect of Hinduism as it is an independent religion in its own right. HH Sohail, The Raja of Chibistan

Somebody recorded recently that if Rajputs were to convert, they could no longer be called Rajputs!With all due respect perhaps he should read the paragraph below...and remember that unfounded taunts are not very noble. The Discovery of India by Jawaharlal Nehru no less, (Oxford Uni.Press 1985, p62) puts into context the concept of unifying 'lineal' inherited identity with 'religious' duty, "The fact of subsequent conversion to other faiths, did not deprive them of this heritage; just as the Greeks, after their conversion to Christianity, did not lose pride in the mighty achievements of their ancestors, of the Italians in the great days of the Roman Republic and early empire." (p341), "...Christians, Jews, Parsees, Moslems. Indian converts to these religions never ceased to be Indian on account of a change of their faith...."

Nehru also mentioned his own personal experience with Muslim Rajputs as he grew up, "I grew to know; the Rajput peasant and petty landholder, still proud of his race and ancestry, even though he might have changed his faith and adopted Islam." More importantly he bears testament to the fact that despite his change of faith, a Rajput is still referred to and recognised as a Rajput.(The Discovery of India, 2004, Penguin, p51)

2006 86.140.142.66 - 86.140.142.66

Answer to above comment

Sir,

Please dont vandalise "Rajput Wikipedia" and delete text randomly, on your insistence I have included a link to Muslim Rajput page from English Wikipedia. It is a well known fact that Hindu Rajputs never in the history of India ever converted by the millions to Islam because of their own free will, they were defeated in unequal wars and forced to convert, those who didnt agree to be converted to Islam were slaughtered by the thousands in front of the very eyes of those who panicked and gave in thus embracing Islam. Invading enemy was famous for raping, slaughtering, and distributing both women and children among themselves after the Rajput (hindu) men died in battle or were slaughtered for not converting.

Please face the truth and the plain facts, this is the knowledge age, no body can afford the excuse that he is from a blindfolded brainwashed lot and dosent know any better.

Sincerely

Best wishes to all who cliam to be Rajputs "Jai Mata Ki"

Atulsnischal 06:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir, You are a very venomous 'oxy-moronic'person that is bent on giving your version of History to any that is gullible enough to hear you.My own ancestor Raja Shadeeb Kumar converted on the orders of Akhbar, and its true that if he did not, he would have lost his State and most likely his head. So, the tactful Raja that he was, he kept his State, by what he called 'adding another god to the 14 he already believed in.Soit seems he did not convert from the heart but,his future generations were spared the ignorance of idolatory and became believers in the one true God of Abraham. Much bigger and powerful Rajputs had the luxury of making pacts with the Moghuls and indeed mixing their blood with Rajputs to the extent that Emporer Jahanghir was half-rajput! However, some like the Mewars considered conversion a fate worse than death. However, raping was never allowed my Muslim armies and any distribution of women was as wives.. and this prevents societies taking advantage of vunerable women who would other fall into disrepute or be victims of abuse. Sure, there was great animosity at times, but the Mughals could not have ruled India without the aid of Rajputs.

HH THE RAJA OF CHIBISTAN

2006 86.140.142.66 - 86.140.142.66


Strange then that despite all of this, Raja Man Singh Kachwaha was not only a general for these Invaders but also gave his sister's hand in marriage to them? I dont think it was for rape, so who is wearing the blindfold?
Again, this article doesn't justify Muslim Rajputs to the Hindu extremists, it just describes them. Important difference. Please save the POV slants for a pro nationalist chat room. This is an encyclopedia.
Best wishes to all people, whatever they are, Wasalaam ul ahl e Haq!

--Raja 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well ofcourse, I will atleast side with you on wishing all people, peace and brotherhood and all the best to everybody of all faiths.

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 07:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


a rajput will always be a rajput no matter what creed he adopts to lead his life. a proud muslim rajput of bargujar clan from haryana

i have observed numerous times when visiting rajput websites that hindu rajputs are loggerheads with muslim rajputs. this shows a parochial view of hindu rajputs and does not come up with the dignity of which the rajputs have long been famous for. I, as a muslim rajput, cannot change my lineage merely by changing my religion. a son of a rajput will still be called and known as a rajput even if he is not a hindu. because once a child is born to a person who is a member of a particular community, he cannot be altered by social means to belong or to be outcasted to any other community. it is therefore technically wrong to say that those who converted to other religions from hinduism have become an alien to those who are still hindus. imagine if the entire hindu rajput population in india ceases to be hindus what will happen to their lineage? of course it will remain unchanged. if i am a bargujaar rajput i cannot change my own identity after changing my faith. so i request hindu rajput fellows to have a generous heart and stop treating muslim rajputs as aliens. thankyou a muslim bargujar rajput beri haryana india


-- It is the same argument as with jewish people. mostly jewish are associated with the religion of judaism. but the fact is that many jewish people are not religious but are also muslims or christians. this does not change their jewish heritage. the catholic cardinal of france said "I'm catholic and jewish." the same thing with rajputs. many rajputs are muslims but that does not change their background and history. i'm muslim and rajput and i'm proud of our ancestors, how they defended india but i'm also proud to be a muslim today. - rajputking


[edit] oh dear

what happened to the ToC of this page? What's with all the "the"s and unmotivated section hierarchies? It looks like a cow has eaten it. Can you try make it look like a Wikipedia article again? I am afraid we'll have to revert to 6 January for now. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

your save is useless as it nullifies lot of useful info. please help improve the current revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.65.129 (talk • contribs)

since you butchered the "current version" of January 6, I might say the same.dab (𒁳) 11:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

if you want to refactor this article, wikiquette expects you to make a coherent proposal to this talkpage first, and listen to feedback before going ahead. You'll find support for some of your proposals, while others will be rejected. You'll then go ahead with the parts that found consensus. If you keep ignoring this process, you'll keep getting reverted. dab (𒁳) 19:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop being disruptive. You are saving a version which is incoherent. If you have any constructive suggestion please discuss them here. I have not seen you contribute a single line so far. 202.142.65.129 07:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
you may want to read the archives. it was hard work to get the article into its present shape. I do not mind your additions at all, just, for pity's sake, make an effort to understand WP:MoS first, in particular Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings). Present your reasons for changing the ToC, and be aware that we don't want sections titled "The Definition" (hint, begin with dropping the article). We also don't want Devanagari transliterations given in the section headers. Titles like "The Contributional Configuration" are just confused. I think there is a language problem here. People will certainly be prepared to help you clean up awkward wording, but not if you're pushy about it. Now I kindly suggest you present a clear case of what you want here on talk. dab (𒁳) 08:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

the present ToC is as follows:

  1. demographics
  2. origins
  3. history
  4. culture and ethos
  5. cognate communities
  6. list of Rajputs

this is much cleaner than the chaotic ToC you are trying to introduce; but it should still be cleaned up. "demographics" and "cognate communities" should be merged. "origins" could be merged into "history", and the list of individuals should be exported to a List of Rajputs article, and only individuals with their own articles should be kept for reasons of WP:V. The history section is far too long and should be cut down to a clean summary of history of Rajputs. The lead should be one or two brief paragraphs giving the bare essentials (WP:LS). Try to help out making this article cleaner, not muddier. dab (𒁳) 09:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

other version is far superior and clear. It is organised into 4 clear sections albeit needs tightening up.

  • Who rajputs are
  • How are they organized
  • What they stood for (they are kind of unique in world diaspora: scottish highlanders come close to rajputs if you want an analogy)
  • What they did ie there history
  • Modern rajputs

So I am changing it back and time permitting will tighten it up. We can have more discussion once I do that. Baikal 14:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

clear? you have twenty-one h2 sections, among them jewels like "The Finest Stories of the Rajput Valour". Your "organization" section appears to have some value, why don't you try insert it into the existing article without messing it up. You really need to get off your "The Configuration" thing, it's silly. My good fellow, we have Category:Rajputs, there is no way we'll do a h2 section on individual ruler, let alone eleven h2 sections on individual rulers, as you apparently insist. dab (𒁳) 14:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It will be far more uphill task to fix the version you last saved. I have started tightening rajawat's version and let us all work on that. I will fix the multiple h2 sections. Any other objections? Baikal 16:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Back to khokla humbug. I predict that the "tightening" will take that version back to the pristine bull created by SS. The "configuration" thing and "finest stories" are not the troll's creation, so of course he will tighten that out. Even otherwise, I have reason to be certain (not just beyond reasonable doubt) that Baikal is SS, and 220.227.48.17 (talk · contribs) went back 310 revisions when he made this edit. Not the slightest AGF is warranted at any time on the Rajput page. So Bachmann, grip the bullshit machine by the horns, stop feeding the trolls and start banning them instead. SS, you need to play a lot, lot more with images on the page of that other khokla tinpot, Idi Amin (and then there is Bikini, LOL!!) before you can gather any credibility to appear on the Rajput page. And even then I shall know you. So get a life outside WP, I say, and begone. ImpuMozhi 18:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Start behaving schoolboy. This is a place for serious people and not kids. Baikal 06:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised, SS hasn't given us the honour for a while; you are right, I shouldnt FTT. time to semi-protect my talkpage again I guess :) dab (𒁳) 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There are bunch of incorrect information in your version of the page. Just to pick one: Emergence of rajputs in 7th century A.D. What makes you make such claims? Ofcourse you can find books mostly by Colonial English who propounded such theories. These are ofcourse discarded by quite a few modern historians who have discovered genealogies of rajput kings going back to ancient Indian kings. So I repeat you are welcome to show your editorial skills and knowledge in poingting out mistakes in this version. Baikal 06:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
you are most welcome to work on the article. You are, for example, welcome to add {{fact}} to unsourced statements that appear dubious to you. The present version isn't "mine", and there is a lot of material in it that I haven't verified. It's just that as long as you insist on replacing the entire article with a wholly different version that we'll be getting nowhere. dab (𒁳) 10:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
in fact, strike the 'welcome', I agree with ImpuMozhi that this is another SS sleeper account. The signature of dumb stubborness combined with a certain stealthy cleverness (slow but steady learning curve how socks are recognized) is inimitable. dab (𒁳) 10:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHY IS THERE A REVERT WAR GOING ON, ON THE "RAJPUT" PAGE

Please work with info in this following important version and retain all of it in the final version:

Revision as of 06:59, 30 January 2007 by Baikal. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&oldid=104283145

And please only contribute to facts if you are knowledgable and have done some serious research from credible sources, if some of us are not so good in English / Grammer, it being not our first language, please help in correcting the English not in adding or substacting facts.

Please let this article be a truthful representation of Rajputs not an ongoing controversy and a Revert War.

Sincerely

Atulsnischal 09:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

you are reverting to the troll's version, Atulsnischal. If it has anything you'd like in the current version, I am sure we can help you insert it in impeccable English prose. Revert-warring doesn't make you look "knowledgeable", pinpointing inaccuracies does. Some flaws of your favoured version are pointed out above; to begin with, it re-states much material from other articles. There is a list of Rajputs article you may want to work on, we do not want a copy of this list here. There is a History of Rajputs article, we do not want to re-state a detailed list of kings here. See also Wikipedia:Main article fixation. dab (𒁳) 10:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Take up some good grammar book to see the proper uses of 'THE', a definite article. This should put at rest the quarrel over use of 'THE'.Why make a fuss over removal of unverified material passed on as HISTORY? Debashishh 14:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many revertions but let it be.Wikipedia must watch or there must be something to watch how the people edits.There have been constant efforts to spoil Rajput History since Muhammad Ghori.Strange versions being introduced.The only thing is that Kshatriya community of royal houses was divided into to many kingdoms and chiefdoms.To differantiate thease from other Kshatriyas who were only army officers or personnell word Rajput was used which is is clearly Apbhramsa or corrupt word of Rajputra in Sanskrit.Word Rajputra has been used in Mahabharata and by Panini.And clearly it referred to son of kings or sons of royal houses or in other words princes.Gradually it deformed into local dilects or in the language of public.You must take into count that Sanskrit was never a language of people in India.It was a high class language for learned and scholerly men.Like Sanskrit Farsi English could not find there place in common people.Great epic Ramcharitmanas got populerity because it was written in the language people understood.Same is the case with lord Buddha who spoke local language.This can be true even for Akbar who not only in language but in all spheres of life introduced localization.His half brother and son of Bairam Khan, Abdurahim Khankhana created poems in Hindi.Some mischievious person found a picture of three or four persons and it is set to represent all thousands of years of history of sacrifice,Honesty,Loyalty,Bravery.Even other castes have been shown to be greater then Rajputs in pictures.

But the Picture clearly shows the position of a Rajput now.Deprived of his lands,Job, some decietful Maphia wants to discredit their history and selfrespect.

The right of expression is honoured in present society but they will express vulgar things and include them in Wikipedia.The person with reasonable thinking and behaviour finds him at no place.Wikipedia can be edited by anybody so we find strange things everyday.I found some Reddy was the last king of delhi.I also found Rajput Prime Ministers and even present vice President, and others as actors and born in 1975 onwards and fan of Preeti Zinta.This vandalism and vulgerism must stop at wiki pedia.

Why dont wikipedia men understand that this is being also regarded as source of right information in present time.I would suggest 'Allow edits but not anything at anywhere and abuse at every place'. I would request all wikipedians to change this image which is claimed to be Rajput soldiers.Nobody knows what was the caste of persons portrayed as Rajputs.

--Shivbramh 15:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC) The image of Rajputs

The image which appears on this page does not symbolize Rajput charecter.I dont know who found it and fixed it hear.Kindly remove it and put some good pictures.There are many famous Rajput personalities and monuments.

--Shivbramh 14:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Just as there are no "Muslim Brahmanas". There are no 'Muslim Rajputs' too. The term muslim rajput is an oxymoron. Show me one muslim general in any historical work, whose primary identity was that of being a Rajput, and it shall be proved the muslim-rajput is not an oxymoron.

spendurti

there are many hindu gujjars as well as gujars amonst muslims, jat hindus as well as jaat muslims why not rajput muslims???????? being a rajput is a social issue rather than a religious. kshatriya title was a political empowerment of a particular clan endorsed by religion. religion cannot work in isolation. it functions with social forces.

wasim singh bargujar


We dont have any objections if Muslims consider themselves to be of Rajput origin.This is historical fact that many Hindus including Rajputs converted into Islam during medieval period.

Rajputs in medieval period were very perticuler about purity of their blood.There are many rules about marriage.The persons who did not follow them gradually lost their identity as Rajput.There are many examples Rajputs becoming Jats, Gujars, and mixing in another caste.

You must be aware that if a Rajput king married woman of another caste, the marriage was allowed but the queen was not allowed to enjoy the same status as the queen from Rajput caste.This was not the practice in ancient India.I believe during medieval period Rajputs became more conservative because they felt a threat to their identity and religio

--Shivbramh 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrilineages

We have two statements here which do not agree:

"Rajput belong to two great patrilineages"

then (later)

"three patrilineages (vanshas)"


Only two are identified. Which is correct?Fconaway 05:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There are only two. Three is incorrect. Also whoever is adding non-sense please stop. Dilli was won by chauhan and not gifted.

[edit] Efforts to hijack Singh article

Editors of this Rajput article are requested to work on the article Singh, as some people are making constant effort to hijack the article and keep it only for Sikhs saying that provide reference if Singh is a Rajput common name, they keep erasing reference that Sing is a Rajput name at all. They keep proving that Singh is a Sikh name only. I suspect these are foreign editors who have no idea what they are talking about obviously.

See this version of the article that erases all reference that Singh is a common name used by Rajputs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singh&oldid=153438525

Kindly provide a lot of references and facts that Singh is a Rajput name and also provide how many Rajputs may be using it as a middle or as the last name because I know Rajputs who migrated outside Rajasthan to other states many hundred years ago have lost touch and now use it now as their last name.

Kindly help to work on Singh article when you all get some time, Thanks

Atulsnischal 06:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added a reference to the book Isbn: 8170231396 A History of the Sikh People (1469-1988) by Gopal Singh in which he states that the appelation of the name Singh was used by the Rajputs long before being adopted by the Sikhs in 1699.

Gorkhali 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic group info box

Why dont you create a ethnic group info box, see the Punjabi, Persian, Gujaratis, Sikhs etc. for the Rajputs. It looks so much neater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.105.94 (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Persian is a nationality and culture. Gujaratis and Punjabis are both based on culture, geography and language groups. Sikhs are a part of one faith. The Rajputs come from different parts of India, speak different languages, might have slightly varying customs depending on their region, its a Jati, not an ethnic group, like the Samurai of Japan.

Gorkhali (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rajput Muslims

Rajput Muslims -

I found in many history books that Many Rajput by their will changed to Muslims before the Muslim invadors came to India. This was the period of the King Harsh wardhana. We should not hate these Rajputs. In the same line I must say that If they are turning back to Hindu religion we must respectfully take back them in our fold - at last that is our blood.

There were many reasons that the Rajput turn to Muslim. So one should not make a hatred statement about these Rajputs. Yes I call them Rajput because they are our blood.

The another thought process I found that there is very sharp difference saying we are this Rajput and that Rajput. I would like to ask any Rajput who claims very cleanly that 'he is Rajput' - the status you got as a Rajput is from common man. I mean to say that when some families from Farmers line took part in wars and they turned to be the kings - Rajas.

When this fact is clear like a sun light why we ourself distinct from the fact that The Rajput is nothing but a raised status of living and a respectable designation. When we ourself are raised why we hate others? They will automatically respect us. By forcing others to respect is no way good, it reverses in negative manner.

In the period of ASHOKA - many Rajputs accepted the dharma of BUDDHA. The Royal Dharma. But since we worshiped - Eklingji and Kali ma for thousand of years, it was difficult for our families to turn to Buddhisam. Also learned BRAHMINs pushed to continue with our traditions.. Finally these brahmins accepted Buddha as 10th avatar of Vishnu. As there were many gods so they added this one Avatar.

The BRAHMINS always abandoned the poor Rajput families from performing poojas. , When these bad traditions continued Rajputs from good origins also driffted to other Dharmas. Some kings families defeated or mislead by brahmins take revenge by turning to other dharmas.

As today we Rajputs strongly hate the BRAHMIN's superior status, the same situation might have occured a long back.

Now its very important for us to maintain our Rajput status. We must learn to change our attitude towards others, time is changing and now sword is not the power the Power is in our presentation and dedication to the good Path that we are following for our won prosperity.

Now the power is in knowledge and Money., we must strive hard for reaching to our status. Bhikari ko koi Raja kyon kahe?

-- Rajput —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.57.2 (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHO ARE TRUE RAJPUTS

there are lot of different sub catagories of rajputs, for example [[[KHOKHAR, MOKHAR, AWAN AND CHOHAN]]] all claim to be rajputs in pakistani punjab. and currently lots of people are entring in rajputs therefore there is no clear seperation of the true caste. i believe all above four out of which(mokhars are expired) are the true predecessors of RAJPUTS. any comments with reasonable history will be appriciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.166.89 (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem bro. Awans are not Rajput and neither does their geneology or historians claim as such. I think this was a mistake by an unlearned wikipedian.
I have never heard of Mokhar or what gotra they represent so cannot comment.
Kokhars are on the whole Tarkhans and Jats. But in Pind Dadan Khan, we certainly do have a tribe called Kokhar Rajputs who have absolutely no lineal bonds with Jat Kokhars at all. I have met a prince of this Kokhar Rajputline many years ago and his geneology encompassed many names of known Kokhar rulers such as Jasrat and Sheikha etc (sadly today, many deluded Jat historians have sought to steal theirs and other Rajputs history as their own. Some even dare to question Rana Sangha's Rajput lineage!). Their ancestor Rai Dadan Khan, was a Suryavanshi prince who recieved the plains of Pind Dadan Khan from Mughal Jahangir I believe. Knowing this family quite closely, I can definitely say they are nobles and accepted Rajputs by many pure Rajputs. The family state that an ancestor of their tribe had the name Kokhar, and did not belong to the actual Kokhar tribe itself. The popularity of this name would be appreciated, when one considers that certain Awan's named a child Kokhar after his mother's familial line, hence starting the Kokhar Awan line. This is a explanation from a few sources.
Chauhans are ofcourse renowned agni vanshi Rajputs and hence do not need my endorsement here. But for what it's worth, only Kokhars of Pind Dadan Khan only (who hold the title of Raja - not the Kokhars of Punjab - nais and Jats) and Chauhans are recognised as Rajput in Pakistan. None of the above mentioned tribes are recognised nor claim to be, Rajputs at all.
Peace.--Raja (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is in BAD shape

I actually wanted to learn about what "Rajput" means when i came to this page. In stead I find disorganised information mixed with a LOT of very clear snobbery. So you enjoy the fact that your ancestors opressed the poor and lorded it up without ever doing a proper days work - fine by me, but I dont want to read about it in an encyclopedia. Can someone with a decent education and some knowledge of the subject write me a clear, concise and scholarly article that tells me facts with maybe the odd interesting aside?

Seriously, this reads like Nietzsche and Robert E. Howard got together and decided to write a script for a Bollywood movie.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.83 (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)