12-08-2006, 07:07 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 8 2006, 11:29 PM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 8 2006, 11:29 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Few points to consider:
a) Wikipedia is a useless source for history. Its contents would not let one pass entry level history exams in any univ.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kartik: Too generalised a comment. Some of the articles don't make sense, but it does help you to get some facts right. Before dismissing the article cited off hand, do read it
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+-->QUOTE(digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin-->b) The Rashtrakuta rulers recorded themselves as descendants from Satyaki of Yaduvansha.
c) Rathores consider themselves descendants of Suryavansh.
d) Now we should ignore what these rulers have recorded for there lineages which they meticulously preserved and we should believe the conjectures of modern historians.
<b>e) Rathore origin is shrouded in mystery BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT that they are descendants of some ancient Kshatriya dynasty of India. It would take more research to figure out which one though.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kartik: It seems you have already formed an unshakeable opinion that they are of Kshatriya origin and that researches can only help you figure out how to justify and prove it your predetermined hypothesis.
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+-->QUOTE(digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also Solankis, one of the fire born clans of Rajputs are of Chalukya lineage. Chalukya origin itself has quite a few theories, I think six in number. Anyways they were a ruling class originating from Karnataka. Considering this I think it is wrong to argue that Rajputs are warriors by blood, for the ancestry of Chauhans is different from Solankis.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is it wrong to argue they are warriors by blood?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kartik: To contend that predisposition and aptitude towards certain professions due to socio economic, political etc factors is ok to some extent, but to argue that it is in blood is illogical. Even if you empirically prove that every Rajput till date has been a brave warrior, which is of course not the case, your theory is still not valid. For even if one or a few turn out to not to be brave then the warrior by blood theory is disproved. Conversely there are many courageous, enterprising and martial men and women in other communities too. Also who determines the scale of bravery. It is too subjective an area to make absolute claims.
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+-->QUOTE(digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't have much idea about other Rajput clans.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do ask questions.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--> They modeled into a warrior clan because of their location towards the frontier of India which was open to invasions. I have seen the link that you have given. Please give me clear answers as to why you believe India remained Hindu if it is not due to inherent strength of Hindu philosophy and our huge population. I take the following from your link.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is nothing about the inherent strenght of a religion when some muslim was holding the sword on the neck of a hindu to eat beef and renounce hinduism.
You are arguing like the priests at Somnath who kept praying to the God to save the temple and them. Ofcourse the sword prevailed even though 50,000 rajputs put up a big fight for 2 continous days and nights to defend Somnath against Ghazni Mahmud. Also he beat a hasty retreat because Mihir Bhoja started from his capital to meet him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kartik: Well frankly there were too many Hindus to be threatened and converted, than what they could manage. Financial and political coercions alone were not able to shake the Hindus faith. Thats the strength of our religion. Secondly for a kingdom to function smoothly it requires the cooperation of the general populace. You can continue to subdue an unsubduable population using sword only for a cerain time period. A wise ruler understands that he requires to collect taxes, get farmers to produce crops otherwise everyone will die of hunger. If Hindus did not live and earn, how would they be able to pay jizya which was a big source of state income.
I'm not saying that the armed resistance was not important, but that alone would not have been able to succeed unless there was a strong faith in the people. Before the Maratha renaissance, for centuries there were many saints like Jnaneshwar, Tukaram, Namdev, Choka Mela, Eknath, Ramdas etc all coming from different sections of society, some were potters, cobblers etc., who through simple songs and the simple concept of Bhakti created a strong faith in religious principles. For the fervour to come in wielding the sword, you require a strong faith. Muslims of the expansion period had a strong faith in their religion otherwise before they were just nomads in the desert. Shivaji had great regard for Ramdas for his efforts towards galvanising the Hindu populace.
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+-->QUOTE(digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->"But it was the strength of Rajput sword and later Maratha and Sikh swords that kept Hinduism alive in India. If there were no Rajputs, Marathas or Sikhs in India, then India would be just like Iraq, Iran, Turkey, or Pakistan in terms of religion of the population. Every month, in the 1000 year presence of Muslims in India there were bloody wars between Hindus and Muslims. This is quite unlike other countries like Iran, where non-muslims, after loosing a couple of wars gave the muslims a free hand in converting there population to Islam."
If this is what you opine ("If there were no Rajputs, Marathas,...), then let me remind you that the first successful indigenous resistence against Muslim rule was the Vijayanagara empire.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you serious? Have you read the Hunter quote here (Muslims had been trying to conquer India sincethe death of Muhammad and had no success for many hundred years. What are you basing your arguments on?):
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_a...asions_of_India
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--> They suffered some 20 years of Muslim subjugation from 1316 to 1336, but they could not even tolerate that much. And the inspiration for Vijayanagara was when sage Vidyaranya asked Harihara and Bukka to save their religion and way of life. The Hindu culture has survived because of its adherents deep attachment to the religion, which they clearly saw as different way of life than what Islam tried to propogate. And it was commonfolk of the Deccan, not any particular race which overthrew Muslims down south. Given a particular set of conditions, socio-economic or political any community can respond.
[right][snapback]61834[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your thesis is completely wrong.
[right][snapback]61834[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kartik After Muslim conquest of Delhi and then later Deccan, Vijayanagara was the first succesful indigenous enterprise which threw away the Sultanate's rule. You can read of how it came about. Then you can comment with reasons why my thesis is wrong.
Few points to consider:
a) Wikipedia is a useless source for history. Its contents would not let one pass entry level history exams in any univ.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kartik: Too generalised a comment. Some of the articles don't make sense, but it does help you to get some facts right. Before dismissing the article cited off hand, do read it
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+-->QUOTE(digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin-->b) The Rashtrakuta rulers recorded themselves as descendants from Satyaki of Yaduvansha.
c) Rathores consider themselves descendants of Suryavansh.
d) Now we should ignore what these rulers have recorded for there lineages which they meticulously preserved and we should believe the conjectures of modern historians.
<b>e) Rathore origin is shrouded in mystery BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT that they are descendants of some ancient Kshatriya dynasty of India. It would take more research to figure out which one though.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kartik: It seems you have already formed an unshakeable opinion that they are of Kshatriya origin and that researches can only help you figure out how to justify and prove it your predetermined hypothesis.
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+-->QUOTE(digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also Solankis, one of the fire born clans of Rajputs are of Chalukya lineage. Chalukya origin itself has quite a few theories, I think six in number. Anyways they were a ruling class originating from Karnataka. Considering this I think it is wrong to argue that Rajputs are warriors by blood, for the ancestry of Chauhans is different from Solankis.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is it wrong to argue they are warriors by blood?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kartik: To contend that predisposition and aptitude towards certain professions due to socio economic, political etc factors is ok to some extent, but to argue that it is in blood is illogical. Even if you empirically prove that every Rajput till date has been a brave warrior, which is of course not the case, your theory is still not valid. For even if one or a few turn out to not to be brave then the warrior by blood theory is disproved. Conversely there are many courageous, enterprising and martial men and women in other communities too. Also who determines the scale of bravery. It is too subjective an area to make absolute claims.
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+-->QUOTE(digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't have much idea about other Rajput clans.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do ask questions.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--> They modeled into a warrior clan because of their location towards the frontier of India which was open to invasions. I have seen the link that you have given. Please give me clear answers as to why you believe India remained Hindu if it is not due to inherent strength of Hindu philosophy and our huge population. I take the following from your link.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is nothing about the inherent strenght of a religion when some muslim was holding the sword on the neck of a hindu to eat beef and renounce hinduism.
You are arguing like the priests at Somnath who kept praying to the God to save the temple and them. Ofcourse the sword prevailed even though 50,000 rajputs put up a big fight for 2 continous days and nights to defend Somnath against Ghazni Mahmud. Also he beat a hasty retreat because Mihir Bhoja started from his capital to meet him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kartik: Well frankly there were too many Hindus to be threatened and converted, than what they could manage. Financial and political coercions alone were not able to shake the Hindus faith. Thats the strength of our religion. Secondly for a kingdom to function smoothly it requires the cooperation of the general populace. You can continue to subdue an unsubduable population using sword only for a cerain time period. A wise ruler understands that he requires to collect taxes, get farmers to produce crops otherwise everyone will die of hunger. If Hindus did not live and earn, how would they be able to pay jizya which was a big source of state income.
I'm not saying that the armed resistance was not important, but that alone would not have been able to succeed unless there was a strong faith in the people. Before the Maratha renaissance, for centuries there were many saints like Jnaneshwar, Tukaram, Namdev, Choka Mela, Eknath, Ramdas etc all coming from different sections of society, some were potters, cobblers etc., who through simple songs and the simple concept of Bhakti created a strong faith in religious principles. For the fervour to come in wielding the sword, you require a strong faith. Muslims of the expansion period had a strong faith in their religion otherwise before they were just nomads in the desert. Shivaji had great regard for Ramdas for his efforts towards galvanising the Hindu populace.
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+-->QUOTE(digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->"But it was the strength of Rajput sword and later Maratha and Sikh swords that kept Hinduism alive in India. If there were no Rajputs, Marathas or Sikhs in India, then India would be just like Iraq, Iran, Turkey, or Pakistan in terms of religion of the population. Every month, in the 1000 year presence of Muslims in India there were bloody wars between Hindus and Muslims. This is quite unlike other countries like Iran, where non-muslims, after loosing a couple of wars gave the muslims a free hand in converting there population to Islam."
If this is what you opine ("If there were no Rajputs, Marathas,...), then let me remind you that the first successful indigenous resistence against Muslim rule was the Vijayanagara empire.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you serious? Have you read the Hunter quote here (Muslims had been trying to conquer India sincethe death of Muhammad and had no success for many hundred years. What are you basing your arguments on?):
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_a...asions_of_India
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--> They suffered some 20 years of Muslim subjugation from 1316 to 1336, but they could not even tolerate that much. And the inspiration for Vijayanagara was when sage Vidyaranya asked Harihara and Bukka to save their religion and way of life. The Hindu culture has survived because of its adherents deep attachment to the religion, which they clearly saw as different way of life than what Islam tried to propogate. And it was commonfolk of the Deccan, not any particular race which overthrew Muslims down south. Given a particular set of conditions, socio-economic or political any community can respond.
[right][snapback]61834[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your thesis is completely wrong.
[right][snapback]61834[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kartik After Muslim conquest of Delhi and then later Deccan, Vijayanagara was the first succesful indigenous enterprise which threw away the Sultanate's rule. You can read of how it came about. Then you can comment with reasons why my thesis is wrong.