02-11-2007, 03:57 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 11 2007, 09:56 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 11 2007, 09:56 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
As you have pointed out that term was used for all groups from south to north this term can not be synonimous with a northern endogamous group like Rajputs.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not? Are you suggesting that kshatriya dynasties of India had a problem in moving from South to the North or vice versa?
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 11 2007, 09:56 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 11 2007, 09:56 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Again as pointed out that Hunas became a part of Rajputs this group can not be equated to ancient kshatriya ,So evidence do suggest, to follow a more balanced view of modern historians, in this regard and treating present rajputs as a mixed group of diverse origin.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is utter nonsense. Please read the reply above.
-Digvijay
As you have pointed out that term was used for all groups from south to north this term can not be synonimous with a northern endogamous group like Rajputs.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not? Are you suggesting that kshatriya dynasties of India had a problem in moving from South to the North or vice versa?
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 11 2007, 09:56 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 11 2007, 09:56 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Again as pointed out that Hunas became a part of Rajputs this group can not be equated to ancient kshatriya ,So evidence do suggest, to follow a more balanced view of modern historians, in this regard and treating present rajputs as a mixed group of diverse origin.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is utter nonsense. Please read the reply above.
-Digvijay