<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->While it is nice to get more knowledge about the brave Rajput warriors, to give an entire community an exalted status and a common branding of bravery is too much to accept.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you care to explain why India is still a Hindu country while Iran is entirely muslim? Do note that the classical argument that it is Hinduism vs Zorastrianism thing is ofcourse rubbish.
Kartik: I never looked at from this angle. Pls tell me your hypothesis, but your import seems to be that kshatriyas resisted Islam and hence India remained Hindu, while Paris were not brave enough to withstand Islam. I think one major factor a large proportion of Indians did not convert. This was because Hinduism is a way of life, being a way of life it was open to assimilation and evolving plus I think Hindus are deeply religious believing both in the form and spirit. We hear of instances where Christian missionaries came to preach Indians their religions. But we being used to debate and vak vivad looked at their preaching as a form of discussion rather than what the Christians wanted i.e. preaching. We said ok, your thought seems interesting, but we have already thought on those lines and maybe have a better way or way better for us. Also you should not disocunt the fact from ancient times India has been one of the populous places on earth. Maybe if were less populous, we would have become a minority by more foreign influx.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Till the 1857 revolt, most of British army which vanquished various Indian states did not have some of the "martial" races like Turks, Afghans, Rajputs, Sikhs etc. You talk of British misrespresenting our history and you yourself are falling victim to one of their propogandas and pet theory viz. "martial races".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope. British as all westerners could not understand what Hindu Jaati/Varna system is.In India throughout the length and breadth of the country there were kings from antiquity and all regions of our country had people who knew how to fight well. Some of the best navies were organized by southern Indian kings. They ruled most of south east asia. Infact there descendants even crossed swords with Genghis's Khans' grandson Kublai Khan who conquered China when he tried to conquer there territoty in modern Vietnam and defeated the mongol forces.
Kartik: That doesn't answer my argument. the company sepoys were largely drawn out of Brahmins from Awadh and Bihar who fought bravely and well to keep the name of their village and regiment up. Of course they fought and defeated the same chaps whom the British later called "martial races". But let me make my point really clear. Through this instance I'm not trying to say that Brahmins are braver than "martial races". The Company won as much because of the drill and discipline, better strategy etc. and Sikhs, Marathas all fought bravely. What I want to put across is that this "martial races" is an incorrect theory. Provide the right socio economic conditions and you will have different communities proving their martial abilities.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--> This was precisely to incorporate more Sikhs and Rajputs in the Indian army. In fact the Sikhs were overproportionately represented in the Indian army during British regime.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And would you know why? Please find out about anglo Sikh wars and the reason why brits won them.
Kartik: Are Sikhs of one common ancestry. They converted to Sikhism, some were Rajputs, some Jats, some Brahmans, some Muslims, some of lower castes. Calling Sikhs a "martial race" itself disproves this theory for they do not belong to one race, whatever that means.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->And about blood, Indians are very mixed in their DNA and ancestry. And especially a group like Rajput will have various strands. I don't know if any DNA study has been done on the same, maybe that would be an interesting input.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope. This is another western myth to keep the aryan invasion myth alive. Indian castes are genetically homogeneous and have largely a south asian origin i.e no influx from west/central asians, sychtians/huns etc.
You can read more about it here:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Origins_a...phical_Presence
Kartik: What has this got to do with Scythians and Huns. I was talking rather of Rajputs having Brahmin or other indigenous origins. Rathods and Parmaras are of Rashtrakuta origin and Rashtakutas had origins probably as agriculturists. What I am saying is in India lots of different far flung communities are surprisingly close to each other in DNA, lots of close communities are different in DNA. Brahmins themselves are found to be very diverse. What I'm disputing is this blood theory. You take a Rajput and raise him in Gujrati trading family or a south Indian Brahmin family and he will grow up with different characteristics. Heredity has some influence, but not so much to make an entire clan brave or coward. You are falling victim to British imperialist and racist propoganda. If Gujrati Jains or Bengalis or Tamils were put in similar socio economic and political conditions as Rajputs at the advent of Islam in India, they would have also fought in the same fierce manner to protect their independance.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also to end off, want to tell you about what is known and told about the Shahis of Udbhandpura or Hindu Shahiyas as they are called. They battled the fierce Turco-Afghans invaders from the north west from Sabuktigin to his son Mahmud and their entire line perished fighting. Jaipala gave up his life on a funeral pyre because he could not accept defeat. Anandapala determinedly fought Mahmud, tried to create a grand alliance with other Indian potentates, mainly the Rajput followers, but in the battle they left him alone.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true. People from as far of as Kalinjar like, Vidyadhar Chandela sent his troops as well as money to the Shahi king. And do also note that the Chandellas were builders of Khajurao and same Vidyadhar defeated Mahmud Ghazni when attacked by the muslim bigot. (Though the muslim historians record that Ghazni was satisfied with a few elephants as present from the chandella king and returned back!)
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->After his death, his sons and their sons continued fighting until the entire line got extinguished. Your greatest measure of praise is the one where an admiring enemy appreciates your mettle. Chand Bardais can always sing Prithviraj Rasos, but I consider Al-Biruni statement about the Shahis, the best proof of bravery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahi
"Emperor Jayapala was challenged by the armies of Sultan Sabuktigin and later by his son Sultan Mahmud. According to the Minháj ad-Dīn in his chronicle Tabaqát-i Násiri (Raverty's trans., Vol.1, p.82), he bears a testament to the political and powerful stature of Maharaja Jayapala Shah, "<b>Jayapála, who is the greatest of all the ráis (kings) of Hind..."</b> Misra wrote on Jaypala: <b>"(He) was perhaps the last Indian ruler to show such spirit of aggression, so sadly lacking in later Rajput kings."</b> (Indian Resistance to Early Muslim Invaders Up to 1206 AD, R.G Misra, Anu Books, repr.1992)
Alberuni, in spite of the fact that he lived under Mahmud, praises the Shahis:
<b>"The Hindu Shahiya dynasty is extinct and of the whole house there is not the slightest remnant in existence. We must say that in all their grandeur, they never slackened in the ardent desire of doing that which is good and right, that they were men of noble sentiment and noble bearing."</b>
Kalhana writes about the sad fate of the Shahis:
<b>"Where is the Shahi dynasty with its ministers, its kings, and its great grandeur? ... The very name of the splendor of Shahi kings has vanished. What is not seen in dream, what even our imagination cannot conceive, that dynasty accomplished with ease"</b>
The <b>Janjua Rajputs </b>of Punjab are the descendants of the House of Jayapala (Chronicles of Early Janjuas, 2003, iUniverse, Dr H Khan, p2-10) (Coins of Medieval India, A.Cunningham, London, 1894, p56, p62) (''The Last Two Dynasties of The Sahis, A Rehman, 1988, Delhi, p131,p48, p49)(Gazeteer of the Jhelum District, Lahore, 1904, p93)"
As you can see some descendants of the Hindu Shahiyas who were Brahmins of the Mohyal caste call themselves Janjua Rajputs. Hence lets stop having this notion of Rajput blood or Afghan blood or Brahmin blood being superior.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is really no proof required by anyone. Facts speak for themselves about what brave SHahi rajputs did. HISTORY IS NOT WHAT IS RECORDED BUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED Muslims are exalted as historians by our marxists and Western historians. I will ask you again why is the length and breadth of India still Hindu?
Thanks for the quotes on Shahis from beruni.
Regarding Janjuas:
What you write is Not true. There are Shahi rajputs still thriving in India. I Know many of them personally.
Question is not about superiority/inferirority but a predisposition of being good towards certain things.
Kartik: I may be wrong about the Shahi being Brahmin example. I just read that Hindu Shahis belonged to two dynasties, the first one being Brahmin, the second one Janjua Rajput which started with Jayapala. But I remember reading in some Mohyal site of Jayapala also being Brahmin. If somebody can provide input on the same please do.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you care to explain why India is still a Hindu country while Iran is entirely muslim? Do note that the classical argument that it is Hinduism vs Zorastrianism thing is ofcourse rubbish.
Kartik: I never looked at from this angle. Pls tell me your hypothesis, but your import seems to be that kshatriyas resisted Islam and hence India remained Hindu, while Paris were not brave enough to withstand Islam. I think one major factor a large proportion of Indians did not convert. This was because Hinduism is a way of life, being a way of life it was open to assimilation and evolving plus I think Hindus are deeply religious believing both in the form and spirit. We hear of instances where Christian missionaries came to preach Indians their religions. But we being used to debate and vak vivad looked at their preaching as a form of discussion rather than what the Christians wanted i.e. preaching. We said ok, your thought seems interesting, but we have already thought on those lines and maybe have a better way or way better for us. Also you should not disocunt the fact from ancient times India has been one of the populous places on earth. Maybe if were less populous, we would have become a minority by more foreign influx.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Till the 1857 revolt, most of British army which vanquished various Indian states did not have some of the "martial" races like Turks, Afghans, Rajputs, Sikhs etc. You talk of British misrespresenting our history and you yourself are falling victim to one of their propogandas and pet theory viz. "martial races".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope. British as all westerners could not understand what Hindu Jaati/Varna system is.In India throughout the length and breadth of the country there were kings from antiquity and all regions of our country had people who knew how to fight well. Some of the best navies were organized by southern Indian kings. They ruled most of south east asia. Infact there descendants even crossed swords with Genghis's Khans' grandson Kublai Khan who conquered China when he tried to conquer there territoty in modern Vietnam and defeated the mongol forces.
Kartik: That doesn't answer my argument. the company sepoys were largely drawn out of Brahmins from Awadh and Bihar who fought bravely and well to keep the name of their village and regiment up. Of course they fought and defeated the same chaps whom the British later called "martial races". But let me make my point really clear. Through this instance I'm not trying to say that Brahmins are braver than "martial races". The Company won as much because of the drill and discipline, better strategy etc. and Sikhs, Marathas all fought bravely. What I want to put across is that this "martial races" is an incorrect theory. Provide the right socio economic conditions and you will have different communities proving their martial abilities.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--> This was precisely to incorporate more Sikhs and Rajputs in the Indian army. In fact the Sikhs were overproportionately represented in the Indian army during British regime.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And would you know why? Please find out about anglo Sikh wars and the reason why brits won them.
Kartik: Are Sikhs of one common ancestry. They converted to Sikhism, some were Rajputs, some Jats, some Brahmans, some Muslims, some of lower castes. Calling Sikhs a "martial race" itself disproves this theory for they do not belong to one race, whatever that means.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->And about blood, Indians are very mixed in their DNA and ancestry. And especially a group like Rajput will have various strands. I don't know if any DNA study has been done on the same, maybe that would be an interesting input.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nope. This is another western myth to keep the aryan invasion myth alive. Indian castes are genetically homogeneous and have largely a south asian origin i.e no influx from west/central asians, sychtians/huns etc.
You can read more about it here:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Origins_a...phical_Presence
Kartik: What has this got to do with Scythians and Huns. I was talking rather of Rajputs having Brahmin or other indigenous origins. Rathods and Parmaras are of Rashtrakuta origin and Rashtakutas had origins probably as agriculturists. What I am saying is in India lots of different far flung communities are surprisingly close to each other in DNA, lots of close communities are different in DNA. Brahmins themselves are found to be very diverse. What I'm disputing is this blood theory. You take a Rajput and raise him in Gujrati trading family or a south Indian Brahmin family and he will grow up with different characteristics. Heredity has some influence, but not so much to make an entire clan brave or coward. You are falling victim to British imperialist and racist propoganda. If Gujrati Jains or Bengalis or Tamils were put in similar socio economic and political conditions as Rajputs at the advent of Islam in India, they would have also fought in the same fierce manner to protect their independance.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also to end off, want to tell you about what is known and told about the Shahis of Udbhandpura or Hindu Shahiyas as they are called. They battled the fierce Turco-Afghans invaders from the north west from Sabuktigin to his son Mahmud and their entire line perished fighting. Jaipala gave up his life on a funeral pyre because he could not accept defeat. Anandapala determinedly fought Mahmud, tried to create a grand alliance with other Indian potentates, mainly the Rajput followers, but in the battle they left him alone.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true. People from as far of as Kalinjar like, Vidyadhar Chandela sent his troops as well as money to the Shahi king. And do also note that the Chandellas were builders of Khajurao and same Vidyadhar defeated Mahmud Ghazni when attacked by the muslim bigot. (Though the muslim historians record that Ghazni was satisfied with a few elephants as present from the chandella king and returned back!)
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->After his death, his sons and their sons continued fighting until the entire line got extinguished. Your greatest measure of praise is the one where an admiring enemy appreciates your mettle. Chand Bardais can always sing Prithviraj Rasos, but I consider Al-Biruni statement about the Shahis, the best proof of bravery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahi
"Emperor Jayapala was challenged by the armies of Sultan Sabuktigin and later by his son Sultan Mahmud. According to the Minháj ad-Dīn in his chronicle Tabaqát-i Násiri (Raverty's trans., Vol.1, p.82), he bears a testament to the political and powerful stature of Maharaja Jayapala Shah, "<b>Jayapála, who is the greatest of all the ráis (kings) of Hind..."</b> Misra wrote on Jaypala: <b>"(He) was perhaps the last Indian ruler to show such spirit of aggression, so sadly lacking in later Rajput kings."</b> (Indian Resistance to Early Muslim Invaders Up to 1206 AD, R.G Misra, Anu Books, repr.1992)
Alberuni, in spite of the fact that he lived under Mahmud, praises the Shahis:
<b>"The Hindu Shahiya dynasty is extinct and of the whole house there is not the slightest remnant in existence. We must say that in all their grandeur, they never slackened in the ardent desire of doing that which is good and right, that they were men of noble sentiment and noble bearing."</b>
Kalhana writes about the sad fate of the Shahis:
<b>"Where is the Shahi dynasty with its ministers, its kings, and its great grandeur? ... The very name of the splendor of Shahi kings has vanished. What is not seen in dream, what even our imagination cannot conceive, that dynasty accomplished with ease"</b>
The <b>Janjua Rajputs </b>of Punjab are the descendants of the House of Jayapala (Chronicles of Early Janjuas, 2003, iUniverse, Dr H Khan, p2-10) (Coins of Medieval India, A.Cunningham, London, 1894, p56, p62) (''The Last Two Dynasties of The Sahis, A Rehman, 1988, Delhi, p131,p48, p49)(Gazeteer of the Jhelum District, Lahore, 1904, p93)"
As you can see some descendants of the Hindu Shahiyas who were Brahmins of the Mohyal caste call themselves Janjua Rajputs. Hence lets stop having this notion of Rajput blood or Afghan blood or Brahmin blood being superior.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is really no proof required by anyone. Facts speak for themselves about what brave SHahi rajputs did. HISTORY IS NOT WHAT IS RECORDED BUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED Muslims are exalted as historians by our marxists and Western historians. I will ask you again why is the length and breadth of India still Hindu?
Thanks for the quotes on Shahis from beruni.
Regarding Janjuas:
What you write is Not true. There are Shahi rajputs still thriving in India. I Know many of them personally.
Question is not about superiority/inferirority but a predisposition of being good towards certain things.
Kartik: I may be wrong about the Shahi being Brahmin example. I just read that Hindu Shahis belonged to two dynasties, the first one being Brahmin, the second one Janjua Rajput which started with Jayapala. But I remember reading in some Mohyal site of Jayapala also being Brahmin. If somebody can provide input on the same please do.