08-30-2006, 08:35 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Dildar+Aug 30 2006, 04:03 PM-->QUOTE(Dildar @ Aug 30 2006, 04:03 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Aug 29 2006, 11:00 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Aug 29 2006, 11:00 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->As I said once before Rajputs never had Jats as there ancestors. Neither Huns/Mers/Meena/Chandals/Foreigners etc.
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]56421[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The above statement is just not right and written in haste.
The link that I am providing below is from the memoirs of a British recruiter, Maj LWA Lyons, who in 1942 was on a recruiting mission in India, specifically Rajasthan area. The link shows Meena were termed as Rajputs in the areas around Kota and Bundi.
Here is the link and the decision is for readers to decide whether Digvijay is misguided or not:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stori...1161.shtml
The second paragraph states:
In the back of this book there was a separate section relating to the criminal tribes of India. Amongst these were bandits, the Dacoits, who lived by swooping down from the hills to raid villages (as so graphically portrayed in the film âThe Long Dualâ). One of these groups was the Rajputs, who had a subgroup the Mena Rajputs. It was men from this tribe that I was to recruit. We were to go up to Rajaputan, and a district called Kota Bundi, to the South of Jaipur.
In the opening para the writer states very clearly about Jats including few other groups:
Among the listings were the âMartial Racesâ like the Jats, Sikhs, Maharatas, Dogras and so on, that contributed to the 19 regiments of foot, and 21 regiments of cavalry, which formed the Indian Army. (The 10 regiments of Gurkhas were not included as they were a separate entity). All these tribes and races had at this time been recruited to the full extent.
DILDAR
[right][snapback]56474[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dildar,
You should have asked me and I would have told you about him and others.
British started census in India in second half of 1800 and during this census anyone could say whatever he felt like.
So muslims at the time of census taking, who converted from Hinduism to Islam, and happened to be rajputs before conversion, were recorded as rajputs! And till today consider themselves as rajputs. It is another matter no hindu rajput considers them rajput. So self delusion cannot be helped.
Even in today's India, in rajput villages the non-rajputs (like Teli, Julaha, Badhai etc) use the surname of the rajputs of that village and often introduce themselves as rajputs. So what you are saying is neither new nor going to end i.e non-rajputs identifying themselves as rajputs.
-Digvijay
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]56421[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The above statement is just not right and written in haste.
The link that I am providing below is from the memoirs of a British recruiter, Maj LWA Lyons, who in 1942 was on a recruiting mission in India, specifically Rajasthan area. The link shows Meena were termed as Rajputs in the areas around Kota and Bundi.
Here is the link and the decision is for readers to decide whether Digvijay is misguided or not:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stori...1161.shtml
The second paragraph states:
In the back of this book there was a separate section relating to the criminal tribes of India. Amongst these were bandits, the Dacoits, who lived by swooping down from the hills to raid villages (as so graphically portrayed in the film âThe Long Dualâ). One of these groups was the Rajputs, who had a subgroup the Mena Rajputs. It was men from this tribe that I was to recruit. We were to go up to Rajaputan, and a district called Kota Bundi, to the South of Jaipur.
In the opening para the writer states very clearly about Jats including few other groups:
Among the listings were the âMartial Racesâ like the Jats, Sikhs, Maharatas, Dogras and so on, that contributed to the 19 regiments of foot, and 21 regiments of cavalry, which formed the Indian Army. (The 10 regiments of Gurkhas were not included as they were a separate entity). All these tribes and races had at this time been recruited to the full extent.
DILDAR
[right][snapback]56474[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dildar,
You should have asked me and I would have told you about him and others.
British started census in India in second half of 1800 and during this census anyone could say whatever he felt like.
So muslims at the time of census taking, who converted from Hinduism to Islam, and happened to be rajputs before conversion, were recorded as rajputs! And till today consider themselves as rajputs. It is another matter no hindu rajput considers them rajput. So self delusion cannot be helped.
Even in today's India, in rajput villages the non-rajputs (like Teli, Julaha, Badhai etc) use the surname of the rajputs of that village and often introduce themselves as rajputs. So what you are saying is neither new nor going to end i.e non-rajputs identifying themselves as rajputs.
-Digvijay