Forums

<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Dec 5 2006, 04:01 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Dec 5 2006, 04:01 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 4 2006, 07:32 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 4 2006, 07:32 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
What you write is a noble goal. The complete extinguishing of Muslims could not take place because most of the Indian states  were of lesser economic means compared to the muslims. 

Why all Hindus did not unite to put up a common front? Multiple reasons. Lack of good leaders at oppurtune times. 

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61711[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is not just a noble goal. This is survival of our civilization and way of life.
It is the structure of our society in the medieval time which made them what they did.

Winning few battles and getting back the kingdoms is not enough.
The plan and the fight to eliminate the enemy in their land is the final goal.
[right][snapback]61714[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Hello Acharya,

Couple of things:
a) We have to be proud of medieveal Indians because they did not let India converted to Islam as these Islamic invaders were able to achieve in Iran etc. This is a very important point that most of us including historians have a hard time understanding.

b) After all the "lessons learnt" is modern India a country where everyone thinks alike w.r.t the defences of India both within and on the border?

My answer to b) is No.

-Digvijay

<!--QuoteBegin-mitradena+Dec 6 2006, 09:21 AM-->QUOTE(mitradena @ Dec 6 2006, 09:21 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Winning few battles and getting back the kingdoms is not enough.
The plan and the fight to eliminate the enemy in their land is the final goal.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Exactly!

Pakistan is the modern extention of the Islamic Sultanate.
And the core of the Pakistani army are the same Afghans & Turks and the half-Afghan and half-Turk admixtures.

I would rank the Turks as the first rate troops of Islam, followed by the Pakhtoons(Afghans).

They are followed by other third rate troops, namely the converted muslim Rajputs, Jats & Gujjars.

Turks are the ones who have spread Islam the most. Even more than the Arabs.

The fight must be extended beyond Pakistan into Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia & Central Asia.
[right][snapback]61753[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Mitr Mitradena,

Can you find out who has won most Nishan-E-Haidar in Pakistan?

-Digvijay

<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 6 2006, 05:18 AM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 6 2006, 05:18 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> 

Hello Acharya,

  Couple of things:
    a) We have to be proud of medieveal Indians because they did not let India converted to Islam as these Islamic invaders were able to achieve in Iran etc. This is a very important point that most of us including historians have a hard time understanding.

    b) After all the "lessons learnt" is modern India a country where everyone thinks alike w.r.t the defences of India both within and on the border? 

      My answer to b) is No.

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61774[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

a) I agree. They did what they faced with what they had.

b) I agree. Modern Indians have been indoctrinated with false history of their own land.


So in conclusion Modernity is a state of mind about the nationality, identity and political awareness relative to rest of the world including the neighbors. Indians have to become political aware of the center of gravity of political center of other races, ethnic groups and nations in the rest of the world. They need to understand the true history of other races and and other land and have a narrative of other races and lands.


Is the Indian elite and political class aware of these?

kartiksri

that quote was from s. n. balagagandhara. since it appears that certain powers are actively trying to erase any mention of his name (he's obviously been blacklisted from wikipedia), we could probably do with creating more awareness regarding his writings.

It's not in my ability to explain full nature of his theories, which i can just barely grasp, but i will atleast try to make feeble illustration here.

Balagangadhara considers the newly minted western environmental ethics to be a feeble attempt by "western" (in your case "modern") society to extend their particular human ethics to other domains, namely, to that of nature. This restriction of western ethics had even predated christianity to the times of homer and in all likelihood even before (see quote below). Indian society, however, certainly never had such a restriction.. in this sense it has always been profoundly "modern". really i cannot see anyone calling a buddha as a pre-modern or pre-enlightenment or whatever as recently done by one witzel and others of his ilk. this debate about "modern" is not about us but about the westerners struggle within themselves and with their own numerous demons. just think that the entire purpose of british presence in bengal was to grow opium for an engineered chinese market.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->... The actions one is ‘ashamed’ of are done in such moments of “delirium”. Good actions are reflec-tions of, come from, the “real me”. The point of reference is essentially the inner self (the good inner self, in Rousseau’s case), in terms of which one can say: “This is really me” or “This is really not me”. Such sentiments are foreign to us, or so I claim.

Three peripheral remarks are in order.

1. We do describe, even in our models, people as ‘good’ or ‘evil’. But these descriptions abbreviate actions and relations: ‘dutiful son’ abbreviates actions performed by one of the relata in its relation-ship with the other.

2. The ‘doctrine of Karma’ is a component of a theory of ‘self-identity. Because the ‘self’ is the set of actions performed by the organism (if we leave out its representations) and because all organisms (including animals, insects etc.) do act, it is not possible to restrict ‘selves’ to human beings alone. Such a doctrine must perforce be applicable to all organisms capable of performing actions, as is indeed the case.

3. Because of the essential relationship between the ‘self’ and actions, the moral life of an organism includes all kinds of actions performed by it during its life-time. This has an additional conse-quence that a human organism’s relationship to the Natural world becomes an essential aspect in the construction of a ‘self’. By the same token, man’s relationship to Nature becomes a moral re-lationship as well.

The contrast with Western ethical thought is again instructive in this regard. <b>Ever since Homer, it has been a rather characteristic trait of Western thinking that moral phenomena pertained only to the domain of human intercourse. The relation of Man to Nature fell outside the scope of moral life: </b>where it does enter into discussion at all, it does so derivatively in terms of, say, the consequences of such actions on future generations. Inanimate Nature, non- and quasi-sentient animals, on their part, could not enter into any moral relationship with human beings because they lacked the faculty or the capacity to ‘reason’ (or whatever) by exercising which moral choices and decisions could be made. Morality came into play only when both the relata in the relationship were moral agents and Nature disqualified herself from being one. In the best of cases, Nature was indifferent to man’s striving to realize a moral world. At worst, she was hostile to such an endeavour.

<b>This restricted scope of the domain of moral life has had the consequence that ‘technology’ could not be considered as a moral action in itself. </b>Technological action has come to be governed by criteria other than those that regulate moral action. To be sure, in the last decade or so, there has emerged a burgeoning domain of environmental ethics, which has seen it fit to challenge the predominant view. ... <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

"Technological action has come to be governed by criteria other than those that regulate moral action. " This explains Ellul's inability to come to moral terms with technique and his consequent reversion to catholicism.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mitr Mitradena,

Can you find out who has won most Nishan-E-Haidar in Pakistan?

-Digvijay
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ok. I checked out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nishan-E-Haider.
Looks like 2 out of 10 are Rajput Muslims for sure (Bhatti & Minhas).

The rest I can't tell. If you know then enlighten me.

But you do agree that historically the Turks have proved themselves to be superior warriors than any other Indic group?

Just look at their track record. No offense intended.

Dhu, I request you to get together with Acharya and write up a more detailed response about Modernity and India. Its very much needed. Thanks in advance.

BTW, Balagangadhara's reply to Jeffery Kirpal

Our problem is as Engineers and technical people we dont know the language of discourse for social scientists and hence even when we have the right reply we cannot articulate it well. We need to develop wrtiting skills.

He writes of the angst we all went thru.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->15. The third charge is that your stance prevents you knowing you are blind. That is to say, why are you blind? Better said, what makes you blind? The answer to this has layers too, and let me peel just a few of them. To do that, I shall have to engage you in your own territory, on your own turf. That is, I want to talk to you about your understanding of your own culture and religion. (Is this not what 'cultural hermeneutics' all about?) Let me, therefore, play the ventriloquist and displace your voice to ask myself a few questions: Is the alienation from our own experience (that I spoke of) any different from what any believer undergoes in the west, when he 'discovers' that God is dead? Is my experience any different from a westerner losing his belief about God and the mystic? Are our travails anything other than the story of 'modernity' as it plays out in India?

16. Yes, to all three questions. Let me get again into an autobiographical mode to talk about some of them. I did not quite tell you what happened during those decades to me when we fast forwarded. Let us rewind a bit and see what happened to the lad between his 18th and 30th year. You see, he wanted to change the world and became a radical. He left home before he was even twenty, lived in the slums, worked in the quarry, went to the villages and even became a Marxist for a period of time. From an 'orthodox' Brahmin, he had metamorphosed into a fire-breathing 'atheist': India was backward, the 'caste system' was a curse, the Indian traditions were outdated, the 'gods' (though he still wrote it with a 'small g'!) did not exist (except that they once walked the lands of Europe!). A run-of-the-mill progressive, in other words. In short, the revolution could not come soon enough for him. However, what brought him to Marxism also brought him out of it: the inability of these stories to make sense of his experience. So, he came to Europe, not in search of the Holy Grail (how could he? He was born a Brahmin after all!) but to study the root-cause of the problems in Marxist theory. You see, in those days it was difficult for us to find books of Hegel, Fichte, Schelling and many other German philosophers in the public libraries. Even as I began to solve my problems with Marx, <b>a new issue was beginning to force itself on me: I had dimly begun to realize that I was an Indian, and that I lived as such in a culture I hardly understood. </b>

17. <b>This realization turned my world upside down; in doing so, however, it helped me regain access to my own experiences. The world that got turned upside down was the one I thought I lived in all the time. I had thought until then that I knew the western culture like the back of my hand: it was a shock to discover just how far I was from knowing either. I could hold forth on the notions of 'civil society', 'ought' in ethics, the histories of renaissance and enlightenment and, why, I could even eat meat and drink wine.</b> None of these, I discovered, meant anything: <b>I was and remained an Indian, even if I once thought I was 'modern'. Thus, I reflected on my experiences (fed by reading and yet more reading) until I could begin to grasp the outlines of the question, what is to be an Indian?</b> Seventeen years ago, I formulated these reflections as a research project, titling it after a poem from T.S. Eliot that goes like this: '...We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of our exploring shall be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time'. I had indeed arrived where I had started from: India, Bangalore, a Brahmin family. I began to know the place too for the first time, because, at last, I could begin to access my own cultural experiences in the way they need to be accessed. However, the job is not complete and the process not yet over. <b>During all these years, I have been constructing the tools required to gain access to our experiences because I realized too that my individual biography was but the Indian history writ small. </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-mitradena+Dec 7 2006, 07:43 PM-->QUOTE(mitradena @ Dec 7 2006, 07:43 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mitr Mitradena,

Can you find out who has won most Nishan-E-Haidar in Pakistan?

-Digvijay
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ok. I checked out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nishan-E-Haider.
Looks like 2 out of 10 are Rajput Muslims for sure (Bhatti & Minhas).

The rest I can't tell. If you know then enlighten me.

But you do agree that historically the Turks have proved themselves to be superior warriors than any other Indic group?

Just look at their track record. No offense intended.
[right][snapback]61787[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_rajp...n-e-Haider
(Though it is a different matter that once you leave Hinduism you cannot be called a rajput. But I guess blood does have something to do with bravery).

Also if you read marxist historians they do not leave any stone unturned in praising turks. In my opinion turks/afghans were not that good.

Have you had a chance to read this:

http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_a...asions_of_India

-Digvijay

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Though it is a different matter that once you leave Hinduism you cannot be called a rajput. But I guess blood does have something to do with bravery).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really, until Shivaji many Marathas were serving under Muslims and did not have any fame like they do now, the Tamils were declared non martial by the British but I am sure you must have heard of the LTTE (still the most organised terrorist/guerilla group in the world).

Bengalis were also declared non martial but most of the people who shot dead British officials came from that province not the so called martial classes like Rajputs or Gurkhas.

<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Dec 8 2006, 07:26 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 8 2006, 07:26 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Though it is a different matter that once you leave Hinduism you cannot be called a rajput. But I guess blood does have something to do with bravery).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really, until Shivaji many Marathas were serving under Muslims and did not have any fame like they do now, the Tamils were declared non martial by the British but I am sure you must have heard of the LTTE (still the most organised terrorist/guerilla group in the world).

Bengalis were also declared non martial but most of the people who shot dead British officials came from that province not the so called martial classes like Rajputs or Gurkhas.
[right][snapback]61815[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hello Bharat,
History of India is a long one. People of Maharashtra had kings who fought many many wars before the time of Shivaji. Similar things happened in Tamil Nadu/ Bengal and pretty much all parts of India.
So do not give much credence to what British say.
Indian kingdoms, throughout the length and breadth, were organized according to the classical varna system and kshatriya abounded in all parts of India.

-Digvijay

<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Dec 8 2006, 07:26 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 8 2006, 07:26 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Though it is a different matter that once you leave Hinduism you cannot be called a rajput. But I guess blood does have something to do with bravery).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really, until Shivaji many Marathas were serving under Muslims and did not have any fame like they do now, the Tamils were declared non martial by the British but I am sure you must have heard of the LTTE (still the most organised terrorist/guerilla group in the world).

Bengalis were also declared non martial but most of the people who shot dead British officials came from that province not the so called martial classes like Rajputs or Gurkhas.
[right][snapback]61815[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

There are braves, accomplished, intelligent, wise men in all communities across the world. There are also weak, coward, narrow minded people in all communities. Sometimes some communities because of their socio-economic conditions are predisposed towards certain professions or way of life, which builds some particular characteristics. But if tapped properly you can find all sorts of abilities in all sorts of communities.

Also people can be brave and courageous without weilding the sword. You are courageous if you stand up for your rights and principles, then it doesn't even matter whether you even have a hand to weild a sword. It was masses of unarmed men and women, old and children with no weapon in hand, only motivated by an idea, that resisted British imperialism in India and unnerved that regime. It can be a long debate, whether satyagraha helped us win freedom or not, but it cannot be disputed that it was a potent force and it was a major factor. And it had all sorts of communities across the length and breadth of India.

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. 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". 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.

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.

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. 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.

<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bharatvarsh)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Digvijay+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Though it is a different matter that once you leave Hinduism you cannot be called a rajput. But I guess blood does have something to do with bravery).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really, until Shivaji many Marathas were serving under Muslims and did not have any fame like they do now, the Tamils were declared non martial by the British but I am sure you must have heard of the LTTE (still the most organised terrorist/guerilla group in the world).

Bengalis were also declared non martial but most of the people who shot dead British officials came from that province not the so called martial classes like Rajputs or Gurkhas.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

There are braves, accomplished, intelligent, wise men in all communities across the world. There are also weak, coward, narrow minded people in all communities. Sometimes some communities because of their socio-economic conditions are predisposed towards certain professions or way of life, which builds some particular characteristics. But if tapped properly you can find all sorts of abilities in all sorts of communities.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Agreed.

<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 09:22 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 09:22 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also people can be brave and courageous without weilding the sword. You are courageous if you stand up for your rights and principles, then it doesn't even matter whether you even have a hand to weild a sword. It was masses of unarmed men and women, old and children with no weapon in hand, only motivated by an idea, that resisted British imperialism in India and unnerved that regime. It can be a long debate, whether satyagraha helped us win freedom or not, but it cannot be disputed that it was a potent force and it was a major factor. And it had all sorts of communities across the length and breadth of India. 
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely. Mahatma Gandhi was indeed the true architect of Indian independence.

<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 09:22 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 09:22 AM)<!--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.

<!--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.

<!--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.

<!--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

<!--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.
[right][snapback]61817[/snapback][/right]
<!--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.

There have been 21 PVC winners so far.
Out of these brave winners:

1 is Gorkha
i)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Thapa.html

1 is Ahir
i)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Yadav.html

1 is Jat
i)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Hoshiar.html

2 are Maratha
i)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Rane.html
ii)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Khetarpal.html

4 are Sikhs
i)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Karam.html
ii)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Joginder.html
iii)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Sekhon.html
iv)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Bana.html

5 are rajput: http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Param_Vir...ard_in_India.29

------
1 is Parsi
i)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Tarapore.html

1 is Christian
i)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Albert.html

1 is a Muslim
i)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Hamid.html

1 is a Khatri
i)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Batra.html

3 are brahmins:
i)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Sharma.html
ii)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Pandey.html
iii)http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/HEROISM/Parameswaran.html

I am not sure if Arun is a Brahmin.

So we see that out of 21 awardees, 14 are the traditional fighter class of India, which includes Marathas, Sikhs, Jats, Ahirs, Gorkha, Rajputs etc.

7 awardees are the tradtional non-fighter classes.

-Digvijay

<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 8 2006, 08:42 AM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 8 2006, 08:42 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Dec 8 2006, 07:26 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 8 2006, 07:26 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->(Though it is a different matter that once you leave Hinduism you cannot be called a rajput. But I guess blood does have something to do with bravery).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really, until Shivaji many Marathas were serving under Muslims and did not have any fame like they do now, the Tamils were declared non martial by the British but I am sure you must have heard of the LTTE (still the most organised terrorist/guerilla group in the world).

Bengalis were also declared non martial but most of the people who shot dead British officials came from that province not the so called martial classes like Rajputs or Gurkhas.
[right][snapback]61815[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hello Bharat,
History of India is a long one. People of Maharashtra had kings who fought many many wars before the time of Shivaji. Similar things happened in Tamil Nadu/ Bengal and pretty much all parts of India.
So do not give much credence to what British say.
Indian kingdoms, throughout the length and breadth, were organized according to the classical varna system and kshatriya abounded in all parts of India.

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61816[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Peshwa Bajirao I and other brave guys of his lineage Chimnaji Appa, his son Sadashivrao were no kshatriyas. Shivaji's warriors were drawn from the lowest of classes and had courageous soldiers from them. Holkar and Shindes had pretty humble origins. When caste system is not that rigid, people from different classes can move across professions. Typically in ancient India you have mostly kshatriya origins and to some extent Brahmin origins of various dynasties for e.g. Sungas, Kanvas, Satavahanas (possibly), Vakatakas, Kadambas, Chach's line in Sind, Saluva dynasty of Vijayanagara (possibly), Peshwas. Also there were Brahmins who were generals under various regimes. Even under Mughals Giridhar Bahadur who was the governor of Malwa was a Brahmin. Kshatriyas and Brahmins were dominant castes, but you find rulers of other lineage as well like shudra dynasty which ruled before Chach in Sind, Palas have a disputed origin, Nanda dynasty, even Mauryas it is so claimed

"The origin of the Palas is nowhere clearly stated in any of the numerous of the Pala records. But Gopala is stated to have belonged to Kshatriya lineage. According to Taranatha, Gopala was born of a Kshatriya family near Pundravardhan (north Bengal) and was later selected a ruler of Bhangala (Vangala). But some of the historical writings of this period claim that Palas belonged to Shudra caste. Some later writings even claim the Palas were Kayasthas as some of the Pala descendents claimed to belong to the sub-caste."

As you can see there is a doubt. Sometimes people claimed lineage to kshatriya caste to justify their claim to rule and to intermarry with other royal lineages to make their claims secure.

But I think our philosophy is exalted about all these things about caste and profession. In Mahabharata there is a story about how a sage learns wisdom from a butcher. You are a Brahmana if you think and act like one, you are a kshatriya if you think and act like one. Shivaji had to go through a ritual purification process to become a kshatriya, but considering his track record he doesn't require a ritual to prove him a kshatriya.

"There is a story in the Mahabharata which illustrates how neglecting one’s duty can become himsa (injurious) to yourself and others. A young monk sitting under a tree was meditating when the droppings of a bird fell on him. The monk got very angry and looked up at the bird which resulted in the bird being burnt to death. The monk later went to a nearby village to beg for food. He stopped at one house and asked for food. The lady of the house came out and asked him to wait while she went back inside. The impatient monk raised his voice in anger at which the lady came out and said, “I am not the little bird that you can burn with your anger.” The monk was taken aback and asked how she knew about the incident. The lady replied, “First come inside and have food. I was not sitting idle while you were waiting. I was doing my duty of attending to my sick husband, and now I am ready to serve you. I am an ordinary housewife, discharging my duties with love for God. If you want to know more go to the butcher in the next village and he will teach you.”

This puzzled the monk even more. He could not understand how a butcher who lived by killing animals and selling their flesh could be his teacher. But he decided to see for himself and approached the butcher. The butcher looked at him and said, “I know that the lady from the next village sent you. Please wait till I finish my work and we will go home and have a discussion.” When the butcher took him home, he first attended to his old parents by serving them food and making them comfortable. Then he served some food to the monk before he himself took his food. After eating he said, “I know you are curious about how the lady and I know about you. Each human life is full of duties and responsibilities. We are not great yogis or scholars. We try to do our duties in the best possible manner. You are a young man with few attachments, yet your father is old with nobody to take care of him. Have you thought about him? Being the only son you have neglected your duty towards him, which has caused him pain. Please go back home and serve your ailing father. Do your assigned duty well and everything else will come to you.”"

There are various stories in Upanishads which uphold one way of life or other, but you got to do good at your job, thats the import. So if a Brahmin picks up a sword and decides he is going to have a life of soldiery, he should become good at it. If a Kshatriya decides that he is going to start trade, then he should strive to do his best. But at all times you should be guided by the dhrama.

<!--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.

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Dec 7 2006, 08:26 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Dec 7 2006, 08:26 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dhu, I request you to get together with Acharya and write up a more detailed response about Modernity and India. Its very much needed. Thanks in advance.

BTW, Balagangadhara's reply to Jeffery Kirpal

Our problem is as Engineers and technical people we dont know the language of discourse for social scientists and hence even when we have the right reply we cannot articulate it well. We need to develop wrtiting skills.

He writes of the angst we all went thru.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->15. The third charge is that your stance prevents you knowing you are blind. That is to say, why are you blind? Better said, what makes you blind? The answer to this has layers too, and let me peel just a few of them. To do that, I shall have to engage you in your own territory, on your own turf. That is, I want to talk to you about your understanding of your own culture and religion. (Is this not what 'cultural hermeneutics' all about?) Let me, therefore, play the ventriloquist and displace your voice to ask myself a few questions: Is the alienation from our own experience (that I spoke of) any different from what any believer undergoes in the west, when he 'discovers' that God is dead? Is my experience any different from a westerner losing his belief about God and the mystic? Are our travails anything other than the story of 'modernity' as it plays out in India?

[/b]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]61788[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I think I'm responding to your thoughts or maybe dhu's or kram's. Really dont know where to start. When a tree is small as this discussion was at the beginning, you can jump from one branch to the other with no dificulty, but when the branches grow up and become trees in their own right, you don't know at which end of the tree you are. Everything is jungle !!

Maybe I can attempt to organise this jungle. This thread was started with the intention of discussing a particular period of our history. But in understanding that
and getting to the depth of it, the scope widened and widened and is almost trying to encompass everything. Right now it has become more philosophical in the sense the Hindu view of the world and sciences vis-a-vis the Western view. This seems to be the region of historiography. I dont know whether my level of knowledge enables me to go along with you to that level.

Indian philosophy focusses on "looking within self" rather than "looking without", though there are schools of thought like Nyaya, Vaisheshika which are not psychological but rather analyze nature. Other schools of philosophy like Uttara Mimansa (or Vedanta), then Buddhist and Jaina are psychological (sorry my terms maybe amateurish, but as ramana put it, I'm an engineer without a good vocab of jargons, so please understand the spirit of what I want to say). The Western Philosophy was more focussed on making sense of nature and bettering the nature around, thus more materialistic. I read somewhere a comparison: If we consider Man, Nature and Society as the three points of a triangle connected to each other, then each of the early philosophies primarily focussed on one of these areas. Indian on the Man (looking within), Western on nature, Chinese (Confucianism) on society and interaction with other men. I accept this is a very simplistic view, but basically trying to understand the difference between Western view and Indian view. Indian philosophy doesn't understand why we need to make a better place to live in when this is all maya. Rather you look within, you will see that what you are is your soul, which is a part of the Supreme Being and then this body, life, world etc become irrelevant. I believe Indians are predisposed towards and excel at abstract thinking mainly because of this.

Now when you say we were always modern, I get an idea where you are coming from. Modern, Ancient are all qualifiers of time. But we believe in a cyclical world, so things like modern, ancient become irrelevant. It is basically a indicator of material progress which is something we consider as maya.

You see if you were to look at things from Indian philosophy point of view, there is no meaning discussing things like "When India became modern". But then there is also no point discussing Sourav Ganguly's return to Indian team or the Asiad performance of India or whether Ash will marry Abhishek B. But guys like me being materialistic, being happy that we are nuke power, being happy when Sensex touches 14000, being sad when Indian cricket and hockey teams lose time and again, being unhappy when we produce only one chap who wins medals at Olympics, also find it interesting to discuss on "When India became modern" from a materialistic point of view. I see only two ways, from Indian philosophy point of view this discussion become totally irrelevant as irrelavant as discussing the politics of history or the outrageous Marxists. The only way to discuss is in a materialist framework. I hope I have chose the terminologies well. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Digvijay+-->QUOTE(Digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 11:34 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 11:34 AM)<!--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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Kartiksri+-->QUOTE(Kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Have you read the link that I posted in my previous reply? There is _no_ other way to interpret why Hindus still exist in India.

<!--QuoteBegin-Kartiksri+-->QUOTE(Kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. Muslims converted there lands on the edge of the sword. Though modern muslims and JNU historians would want you to beleive it was sufis who did it.

In India they were not allowed to do this conversion. There is no Vaak Vivaad. What people fail to see is Zoroastrianism was an ancient religion and after loosing the wars the conquered Iranians did not "fall in love" with the new religion hook, line and sinker.

<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These are incorrect conjectures.
<!--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-->

No I am not. Please read my previous post again and contrast it with what British thought of as martial races.

<!--QuoteBegin-Digvijay+-->QUOTE(Digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Please research Anglo-Sikh wars (some references: Cunnungham/Patwant SIngh/Khushwant Singh. Gist is sikh generals had sold out to the brits for narrow personal gains. Couple of these generals were brahmins and one was a Dogra). So it was not bravery of Brits or the sepoys that won the battle. If you just read our modern historians, including the NCERT / JNU crowd all you will find is Hindus/Sikhs were sitting duck and they lost. Of course reality is quite opposite.In Persia Yezdezird lost a couple and his entire country was converted to Islam. We did not allow this to happen in India.
<!--QuoteBegin-Kartiksri+-->QUOTE(Kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--> 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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not subscribe to MR theory. Please read my previous post.



(More in the next one. Formatting nightmare)

<!--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-->

<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+-->QUOTE(digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin-->And would you know why? Please find out about anglo Sikh wars and the reason why brits won them.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin--> 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.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Who is spporting this theory?
<!--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-->

<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+-->QUOTE(digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. First of all *ALL* modern historians say that rajputs are descendants of Scythians/Huns and kshatriyas are of West/Central Asian Aryan Invaders. Science has proven it otherwise. Brahmin origin is also completely incorrect.
<!--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-->

<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+-->QUOTE(digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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!)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--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 bearss a testament to the political and powerful stature of Maharaja Jayapala Shah, "<b>Jayapála, who is the greeatest of all the ráis (kings) of Hind..."</b> Misra wrote on Jaypala: <b>"(He) was perhaps the last Indiann 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.

[right][snapback]61817[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Digvijay+-->QUOTE(Digvijay)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
[right][snapback]61818[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is wrong. Brhamins and rajputs have no connection.

-Digvijay

<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 8 2006, 02:50 PM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 8 2006, 02:50 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kartiksri)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
[right][snapback]61818[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is wrong. Brhamins and rajputs have no connection.

-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61830[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Please see www.mohyal.com, the history of Vaids and tell me why you are so sure. They claim even Porus was a Mohyal. Mohyals are Brahmins.

digvijay,Dec 8 2006, 02:49 PM Wrote:

kartiksri Wrote: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.

digvijay Wrote: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

kartiksri Wrote: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.

No. First of all *ALL* modern historians say that rajputs are descendants of Scythians/Huns and kshatriyas are of West/Central Asian Aryan Invaders. Science has proven it otherwise. Brahmin origin is also completely incorrect.

[right][snapback]61829[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Please read closely. It is believed that Rathores originated from the Rashtrakutas. I think in the discussion on Shivaji, Hauma also pointed that out. Please see the following from the wiki link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathore#Conne...he_Rashtrakutas

"Connection to the Rashtrakutas
At Hathundi, in what was formerly the princely state of Jodhpur , 10th century inscriptions have been found mentioning kings Harivarma, Vidagdha, Mammata, Dhavala and Balaprasada, all of the Rashtrakuta dynasty. This is not in fact surprising, since the Rashtrakutas held sway over Marwar in that era. However, as we have seen above, the Rathores first emerge in Rajasthan shortly after that same era; therefore, there have been some recent efforts to impute to the Rathores a connection with the Rashtrakutas. The connection is tenuous to say the least, being based mainly upon the similarily of the two names; it is dismissed by historians as being fanciful. One can only await further research into this question."

Now Rashtrakutas were feudatories of Chalukyas initially and are believed to be from Latur district. The Rashtrakuta origin itself is shrouded in mystery.

"There are several controversies about the origin of the founders of the Rashtrakuta feudatory during their rule from central India as subordinates of the Badami Chalukya during the 6th. and 7th. century. Dr. P.B. Desai[2], Dr. A.S. Altekar[3], Dr. D.R. Bhandarkar, Dr. S.U. Kamath claim the Kannada origin[4]. Dr. J. F. Fleet[5] claimed a Rajput origin while historians. Historians C. V. Vadiaya, R. G. Bhandarkar postulate a Maratha origin theory while Dr. A. C. Burnell and H. Krishna Shastri believe they were descendants of Dravidian Reddis of Andhra Desha[6]. However, the general understanding is that they originated from an area in the deccan called by various names such as Kuntala, Maharashtra and Karnata."


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. I don't have much idea about other Rajput clans. 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.

"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. 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.