12-09-2006, 01:48 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 8 2006, 11:29 PM--><div class='quotetop'>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
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I just paraphrased what Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder, told media when asked about some students who flunked there history exam because they had used wiki to prepare for there exam.
<!--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-->
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. I have not. I clearly state that more research is needed but I do trust the rajputs and there records about there history more then what a historian from west or JNU would tell me say about rashtrakutas and rathores.
<!--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-->
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it is not. Even if we ignore the past for a moment, please answer why in independent India overwhelming majority of PVC and MVC are won by traditional warrior classes of India?
-Digvijay
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
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I just paraphrased what Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder, told media when asked about some students who flunked there history exam because they had used wiki to prepare for there exam.
<!--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-->
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. I have not. I clearly state that more research is needed but I do trust the rajputs and there records about there history more then what a historian from west or JNU would tell me say about rashtrakutas and rathores.
<!--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-->
<!--QuoteBegin-kartiksri+Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM-->QUOTE(kartiksri @ Dec 9 2006, 12:37 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it is not. Even if we ignore the past for a moment, please answer why in independent India overwhelming majority of PVC and MVC are won by traditional warrior classes of India?
-Digvijay