02-11-2007, 01:09 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-ishwa+Feb 10 2007, 10:46 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ishwa @ Feb 10 2007, 10:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus, it is crystal clear, thanks to Digvijay for the textplaces, that Rajput as name for the royal class is just a continuation of the ancient KShatriya/Raajaputra class. Some families disappeared (possibly with loss of status and profession), some did reappear through minor or subbranches here and there, but also new ones appeared on the scene.
[right][snapback]64258[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We have to see whether Rajaputarta or Rajaputartava can be substituted for a class of people like Rajputs ,may be Bodhi and Bharatvarsha can enlighten us.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Narendra,
It is quite clear in Anushashan Parva. Please read the referenced chapter where Rajputra is used for kshatriya interchangably.
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
However Persian texts are quite crystal about it.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why would you consider our own Mahabharata lower as a source compared to what a mullah court historian writes, who most likely had no idea about Sanskrit or what is mahabharata and on top of it makes such idiotic claims:
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Quote Fariesta..
......The population of India, like that of other parts of the globe, arose from the descendants of Noah.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->So I feel like other modern historians that Rajput is a later group and identity seprate from the ancient Kshatriyas.
[right][snapback]64265[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All these modern historians are wrong. If they had just done a little bit more research they would have seen there are umpteen number of inscriptions and references to rajputra kings in our history.
You can see some references here:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Definition
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]64258[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We have to see whether Rajaputarta or Rajaputartava can be substituted for a class of people like Rajputs ,may be Bodhi and Bharatvarsha can enlighten us.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Narendra,
It is quite clear in Anushashan Parva. Please read the referenced chapter where Rajputra is used for kshatriya interchangably.
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
However Persian texts are quite crystal about it.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why would you consider our own Mahabharata lower as a source compared to what a mullah court historian writes, who most likely had no idea about Sanskrit or what is mahabharata and on top of it makes such idiotic claims:
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Quote Fariesta..
......The population of India, like that of other parts of the globe, arose from the descendants of Noah.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->So I feel like other modern historians that Rajput is a later group and identity seprate from the ancient Kshatriyas.
[right][snapback]64265[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All these modern historians are wrong. If they had just done a little bit more research they would have seen there are umpteen number of inscriptions and references to rajputra kings in our history.
You can see some references here:
http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Definition
-Digvijay