08-27-2006, 11:57 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Aug 27 2006, 11:05 PM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Aug 27 2006, 11:05 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Digvijay
Than you didn't read the article seriously or are you following the same negative attitude of picking wrong and suppressing right information.
The author in his footnote clearly explains this picture when he says that Harris just blundered in his guess about caumorin.Balahara was the ruler of Sindh.Again the traveller explains that his forefathers too ruled for generations.
I won't let you be in any confusion these BALHARA rulers fought with Dahir also who could not defeat them despite all his might and it is a recorded historical fact.
Is it ok.
Now author makes it clear that Balhara is an appellate used by these kings not the real name .What you got by that?
It means that Balhara was just the clan name not found anywhere except in jats.
PS Digvijay ji .. Pls be clear we don't have any wish to relate jats to any tribe and least to rajputs Jats are a proud race .I just want to make clear that some of Rajput ancesstors may be jats in addition to huns gujjars meds bhars and other groups.
[right][snapback]56307[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nandibum,
During the time of this Balhara king i.e middle of 9th century A.D. three major Hindu monarchs of north India were given in my last post. Since Balhara is not the king's proper name could you find out what his real name is?
Lastly you keep repeating the same thing about Jats, huns etc being ancestors of rajputs. Clearly you have some motivation to show a connection with rajputs. In reality such a connection just does not exist.
What you are most likely getting confused by is similarity of surnames between rajputs and jats. I have already explained the reasons for this.
-Digvijay
Than you didn't read the article seriously or are you following the same negative attitude of picking wrong and suppressing right information.
The author in his footnote clearly explains this picture when he says that Harris just blundered in his guess about caumorin.Balahara was the ruler of Sindh.Again the traveller explains that his forefathers too ruled for generations.
I won't let you be in any confusion these BALHARA rulers fought with Dahir also who could not defeat them despite all his might and it is a recorded historical fact.
Is it ok.
Now author makes it clear that Balhara is an appellate used by these kings not the real name .What you got by that?
It means that Balhara was just the clan name not found anywhere except in jats.
PS Digvijay ji .. Pls be clear we don't have any wish to relate jats to any tribe and least to rajputs Jats are a proud race .I just want to make clear that some of Rajput ancesstors may be jats in addition to huns gujjars meds bhars and other groups.
[right][snapback]56307[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nandibum,
During the time of this Balhara king i.e middle of 9th century A.D. three major Hindu monarchs of north India were given in my last post. Since Balhara is not the king's proper name could you find out what his real name is?
Lastly you keep repeating the same thing about Jats, huns etc being ancestors of rajputs. Clearly you have some motivation to show a connection with rajputs. In reality such a connection just does not exist.
What you are most likely getting confused by is similarity of surnames between rajputs and jats. I have already explained the reasons for this.
-Digvijay