12-08-2006, 11:29 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 8 2006, 05:58 PM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 8 2006, 05:58 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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 .......
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
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.
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->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?
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->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.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->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.
-Digvijay
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 .......
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
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.
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.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->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?
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->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.
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+-->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.
-Digvijay