-The point whether rAjpUts are related to the ancient kShatriyas of the itihAsas cannot be easily settled.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not? Mahabharata Book 13, Chap's 118,119,120 makes it abundantly clear where kshatriya and rajaputra are interchangably used.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Feb 11 2007, 03:31 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Feb 11 2007, 03:31 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->But it is clear that colonial historians have attempted to delegitmize the rAjpUts by calling them descendents of hUnas and so on.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. W.r.t Hunas lack of good historical records have led to lot of conjecture and speculation.
a) It is recorded by Majumdar that Skandagupta had a decisive win over Huns in middle of fifth century A.D. He also records that the defeat was such that for next 50 years no more Hun incursion into India.
After defetaing the Huns he took the title of Vikramaditya.
b) Skand died in 467 A.D. His successor Purugupta's son Buddhagupta ruled from 477 A.D. to 500 A.D. without a rival and his kingdom was peaceful and prosperous.
c) Then Maitrakas who were generals of Gupta empire made there province of Vallabhi hereditary in beginning of 6th century A.D.
d) It is recorded at an incsription dated 510 A.D. in Eran (Saugor District, Madhya Pradesh):
the mighty king, the glorious Bhanugupta, the bravest man on the earth fought a battle in which his feudatory chief Goparaja was killed and the latter's wife with him in the same funeral pyre - the earliest epigraphic record of the Sati rite in India. It is speculated that Goparaja might be a Huna but no one is sure. With a name like Goparaja it is highly unlikely that he is a Huna.
e) At the beginning of 6th century what historians are sure of is that White Huns, Hepthalites, overran the Persian empire and killed Firuz the king. But no details of the further progress of the Huns into India, and the opposition, if any, offered by the Gupta empire at the frontier are known to us.
f) It is also recorded that Yashodharman defeated Mihirkula, a shiv worshipper, in 528 A.D. Note if Mihirkula was really a Hun why would he be a Shiva worshipper?
g) The presence of Huns in India in 6th century is akin to Greeks recording that "India was a satrap" of Persian empire at the time of Alexander, which we know is patently false. Similarly there was never any period of time where large parts of India were ruled by Huns.
h) And most importantly the central asians have statistically no contribution to the genes of Indian castes as Sahoo a genetecist has demonstrated.
i) Lastly similarity in names does not mean common origin.
So any theory regarding Hunas being absorbed into rajput hood is patently false.
<!--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.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->g) ... Similarly there was never any period of time where large parts of India were ruled by Huns.
i) Lastly similarity in names does not mean common origin.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correct.
On Huna starting with Wikipedia: "The Bhishama Parava of the Mahabharata, supposed to have been edited around the 4th or 5th century, in one of its verses, mentions the Hunas with the Parasikas and other Mlechha tribes of the northwest including the Yavanas, Chinas, Kambojas, Darunas, Sukritvahas, Kulatthas etc (MBH 6.9.65-66)."
The referred Shloka of the textplace is:
yavanaash ca sa kaambojaa daaruNaa mleccha-jaatayaH |
sakShaddruhaH kuntalaash ca huuNaaH paaratakaiH saha ||
Among the tribes of the north are the Mlecchas, and the Kruras, O best of the Bharatas; the Yavanas, the Chinas, the Kamvojas, the Darunas, and many Mleccha tribes; the Sukritvahas, the Kulatthas, the Hunas, and the Parasikas;
Comment: See here already a discrepancy between Gangulyâs translation based upon another recension than the one appearing as the critical edition. No Parasikas in the last.
The Hunas are, if I am correct, only a few times mentioned in the Shatasahasriiya MBh of the 1st century CE, predating the Hephthalite incursion, and thus cannot refer to the Hephtalites in any way.
Huna here is described as an indigenous, peripherous Mleccha Gana (mleccha stands for originally related culture and speech, but moved away from the mainstream. Mleccha = Praakrta VaibhaaShika). They must be related to the other N/NW Ganas like Yavana-Kamboja and W/NW ones like Paaradas or Paarata-kas.
The form HuuNa is clearly a Praakritika form. And one cannot seriously rule out misspellings by the generations of reciters and copyists of the manuscripts.
It is again enumerated with NW Ganas like Chinas/Shinas and Shakas.
ciinaan huuNaan shakaan oDraan parvataantaravaasinaH |
vaarShNeyaan haarahuuNaaMsh ca krShNaan haimavataaMs tathaa || MBh ii.47.19||
This Shloka refers to Chinas (is Shinas and not Chinese), Hunas, Shakas and Odras (?) and the ones living in the interior mountainous areas of the HinduKush as natural border. It is mentioned further with the Varshneyas (related to the Vrshnis) , Harahunas, Krshnas and Himalaya people.
In short, we are dealing here with people closely neighbouring and resembling each other within the inner subcontinental shield of HinduKush and Himalaya.
On HaraHuna:
haarahuuNaaMsh b02.c029.v011 b02.c047.v019 (see above) b03.c048.v021
ramaThaan haarahuuNaaMsh ca pratiicyaash caiva ye nrpaaH |
taan sarvaan sa vashe cakre shaasanaad eva paaNDavaH ||ii.29.11||
And the son of Pandu, by sheer force, reduced to subjection the Ramathas, the Harahunas, and various kings of the west. And while staying there Nakula sent. O Bharata, messengers unto Vasudeva.
Nothing points here to an foreign nature of the Hara-Hunas. (special branche of (north)western Hunas?). And in the following, they are again mentioned amongst other Praakrita speaking Ganas:
haarahuuNaaMsh ca ciinaaMsh ca tukhaaraan saindhavaaMs tathaa |
jaaguDaan ramaThaan muNDaan striiraajyaan atha tangaNaan ||iii.48.21||
The indigenous HaraHunas are clearly neighbouring Indo-Arya Shinas, people of snowy mountainous areas (Tukhaara a kentum word, hinting at Bangani speaking areas? The satem variant is TuShaara) and (N-)Indus Ganas. Some think that Hunadesha is an Himalayan area close to Tibet, to which Bhavishya Purana also hints in: ekadaa tu shakadhisho himatungari samaayayau hunadeshasya madhye vai giristhan purusam shubhanodadarsha balaram raajaa [the Shloka is a bit corrupt at: http://news.sulekha.com/newsanalysisdisp...cid=134574]
The indigenous Shakas were also always present in the subcontinent, having their origins in Ushinara country, with Kantha town names mainly in Ushinara country and at Varnu area as per Ashtadhyayi of Panini (at least ca. 500 BCE). Gradually the ancient Shaka dialect, closely resembling Eastern Iranian, must have Iranized during Medo-Achaemenid times, comparable perhaps with the Hindko situation later on in the NW. And also see how Ashvayana of Panini gets represented as Aspasioi in Alexandrian times.
The very early off branched Shakas reached Agnidesha areas in Xinjiang in which province the Gandhari Prakrita can be traced in Bauddha texts. The returning Shakoid people, had absorbed many elements of other Xinjiang and Central-Asian groups. One of these were the Kushanas.
These âforeignâ Shakoids, speaking by then rather an Eastern Iranian language, were really seen as barbarians as they appeared in the 1st century BCE and 1st century CE on Indian soil pushed by the expanse of the Hsiungnu. It is especially from this period on that the descriptions of horror and evil of the Kaliyuga are rising in the Puranas and reedited DharmaSmrtis. See also the Yugapurana section of the Garga Samhita describing the slaughter and deportation caused by these hordes reducing the entire population enormously.
When much later on the Mongoloid Huns (Juan Juan) swept over Eurasia, the nomadic (polyandrous!) Shako-Mongoloid Hephthalites when pushed towards the south replacing the Kidarites, may have been identified with the indigenous Huna Ganas, whose northern areas they entered as their overlords. This is much the same as the Alexandrian Macedonians entered areas of the Yavana Gana and adopted the identity of the last and also cultural features, like the Vaasudeva Cult.
Thus, nomadic Eurasian Huns were not the same as the indigenous Hunas, despite the homonymous resemblance.
But, as the Hunas especially under leadership of the Hephthalites were very aggressive, their Gana name became very impopular.
-the ChAhamAnas, chAlukya-s paramAra-s pratihAra-s are mentioned as the chief agni-bhU clans that were created in the yaj~na at arbuda parvata. As per some accounts the mAraTha clans like Shinde and Bhosle have been called Apa-bhU.
.......
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There have been more then 100 Chauhan inscriptions and copper plates discovered so far. Not a single one mentions them to be Agnivanshi.
Note if Chauhans were Fire born there Gotra would have been Vashist.
Accurate descriptions of Chauhan kings in works like Prithviraj Vijay, Hammir MahaKavya, etc. do not mention Chauhans being Agnivanshi.
Middle of 16th century work, Prithviraj Raso is the first time Chauhans are mentioned as Agnivanshi. (Only a small kernel of this work is accurate).
This inaccuracy has been embellished over the centuries and people have started to falsely believe Agnikula origin of Chauhans.
Similarly there are other inaccuracies in Raso like the most glaring one: Anang Pal Tomar of Delhi is shown as a Nana of Prithviraj Chauhan (This inaccuracy has also been copied to Sarv Khap records) when in fact Prithviraj's mother was from the Kalachuri dynasty of Tripuri, Madhya Pradesh. In fact I have seen Indians argue that how could Prithviraj Chauhan marry his maternal aunt's daughter!
<!--QuoteBegin-ishwa+Feb 11 2007, 05:04 PM-->QUOTE(ishwa @ Feb 11 2007, 05:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->g) ... Similarly there was never any period of time where large parts of India were ruled by Huns.
i) Lastly similarity in names does not mean common origin.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In short some of the native Indus Valley inhabitants termed Scythians or saka by Greek and other authors just moved outside and returned back over a period of time.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In short some of the native Indus Valley inhabitants termed Scythians or saka by Greek and other authors just moved outside and returned back over a period of time.
This is well supported by Genetic evidences also.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dear Nandibum,
It is much more complicated than that, otherwise there would not have been confusions about the movements.
The older classical authors like Herodot were rather very ignorant about eastern nomads, relying on indirect sources.
The ancient Shakas and other indigenous Ganas like Kamboja (traders) that moved out must have done that very early in history in small numbers and rather without getting much attention.
By the time they were pushed back through Eastern Iranian areas they had absorbed much of their language and culture, but also Proto-Turki, Mongoloid and "Kentum Tokharian" elements and subjects.
The Xinjiang "Sakoids" which were pushed by Mongoloid and Proto-Turki groups were a very mixed group.
One can see how we are dealing with two "ethnically" different group descriptions when "in 644 A.D. the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang remarks seeing a small settlement of 'White Huns' by Kunduz in the Hindu Kush. He calls this area Himatala, originally part of Tukhara and says that it once was a powerful country with a royal lineage of Saka stock. He also calls the inhabitants 'short and ugly in their features'. This goes directly against Procopius who wrote in 550 A.D. that the 'Ephthalitae' were 'the only ones among the Huns who have white bodies and are not ugly' and 'are not nomads like the other Hunnic peoples, but for a long period have been established in a goodly land'."
Also: '"The Ephthalites are of the stock of the Huns in fact as well as in name; however they do not mingle with any of the Huns known to us.... They are the only ones among the Huns who have white bodies and countenances which are not ugly." [Procopius]'
Note that they are counted amongst the "Huns" (Juan Juan) as coming from Central-Asia and farther, but are clearly not Mongloid Huns, as per Procopius, who is by the way not an eye-witness. Compare that with what Xuangzang says!
Is the very small group of settlers of Hephthalite origins then related to Sakas? No, as per Zuangzang! Their even smaller number of aristrocracy is counted as Saka. This alienated Sakoid aristocracy reentered the areas of the distantly related (Hybrid Iranized-Indic Shakas)
Hepthalite and Hua = Avar?
"To the Chinese, they were the Ye-ti-i-li-do or Yeda, even though the Chinese chroniclers seem to realize that the people called themselves the people of Hua", as per Richard Heli. [Hua may be the Chinese rendering of Var = Avar. The name Yetilito is based upon the name of their aristocracy. When the Sassanians and Gok or Blue Turks defeated the Hephthalites between 550-580 CE, we see Mongoloid Avars moving westward to Europe.]
Thus, a very small amount of "Saka" returned, and that too mostly in Afghanistan. Their significance to Indian population is negligable.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There have been more then 100 Chauhan inscriptions and copper plates discovered so far. Not a single one mentions them to be Agnivanshi.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am well aware of the fact that early ChAhamAna inscriptions do not mention the agni-bhU myth. But this is also true for early paramAras who are considered agni-kula par excellence. In bhoja's inscriptions times we do not encounter any account of the agnikula myth at all. There is an early inscription that states that the paramAras are of the clan of rAShTrakUTas. The original point in my post was not to get into the veracity of whether a clan is originally termed agni-bhu or not at the first point of reference-- it is clear that even paramAra-s were not originally mentioned as agnikula in inscriptions. Of course for the other other inscriptional evidence for them being agnikula is lacking. I was only pointing out in the original post that not all clans are called agni-bhu, but only the above named subset. So the sweeping claim that all rAjpUts were elevated kShatriya-s (as implied by the agni-kula myth) is not valid.
Note if Chauhans were Fire born there Gotra would have been Vashist.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is not necessary that if some one is termed agni-kula their gotra automatically becomes vasiShTha. The rules for kShatriya as per the gotra-pravara section of the kalpa sUtra is clear. If he does not remember or have an original gotra he takes that of his brahminical Acharya for ritual purposes. We do find clans called agni-kula having other gotras because of their Acharyas.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Middle of 16th century work, Prithviraj Raso is the first time Chauhans are mentioned as Agnivanshi. (Only a small kernel of this work is accurate).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are possible earlier reference in the for this-- a bhaviShyata purANa recension that dates earlier than 16th cent for certain, perhaps around 1200s. Of course one can argue interpolation and the like but definitely it seems to have entered the bhaviShyata purANa recension before 1500. The agnikula myth itself is fairly old because we see it in padma-gupta's account though in that the chAhamAnas are not mentioned. At least in the Khichi-chauhan version of the myth we find chAhamAnas mentions as the primary heroes of the agni-kula who finally destroyed the mlechCha-dAnavas. So it means by the medieaval period this idea had gained wide acceptance.
<!--QuoteBegin-ishwa+Feb 11 2007, 09:37 PM-->QUOTE(ishwa @ Feb 11 2007, 09:37 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus, a very small amount of "Saka" returned, and that too mostly in Afghanistan. Their significance to Indian population is negligable.
[right][snapback]64298[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ishwa
The main problem starts beacuse of our excessive reliance on foreign authors and terminologies given by them , some of which even didn't come in contact with real people and our attempts to find their exact match in native population.So Huna of Herodotus and Huna of Procopius may have obvious differences.
A better approach in this regard would be to take real indian people and see what were they called by other historians as Herodotus ,Procopius or Heuntsang.
When we equate Sakas with Scythian and attest their presence in Indus region from ancient times we can not think that there would have been boundaries to restrict their to and fro movement between central asia and northwest , and distances between Parama ,Kamboja ,Tukharas ,Sindh Peshwar ,Sogandia ,Parthia,were even some times less than southern and northern parts of present indian nation
We can not forget the existence of a nation of Sakas called Scythia by author Periplus of Eurythrian sea and Sindhu Sauvira by native scholars at the same place with in India. Similary movement of Turusakas and Bala hords in to and out of indian lands.These Tur sah or tur saka are recorded as per Iranian records ruling north west and at the same time we are finding the rise of Tur and tomars of Indian Jats Rajputs or Gujjars .Similarly Paramabhattaraka Balas are reported with their genealogies shifting from Indian names to Turanian names and at the same time emergence of Balas of Indian Jats gujjar or Rajputs.
Some authors do find it difficult to differenciate scythian and aryan as a people.
So many times we are seeing the same race moving at different times and being treated as a different groups.
Again we can not rule out the fact that people from Parthia and Parma called parthihar ,parthavas ,parmaras did come and established their rule and most probably gave rise to some legends of Agani kula nature.
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 12 2007, 09:22 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 12 2007, 09:22 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->.....
The main problem starts beacuse of our excessive reliance on foreign authors and terminologies given by them , some of which even didn't come in contact with real people and our attempts to find their exact match in native population.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point.
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 12 2007, 09:22 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 12 2007, 09:22 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->A better approach in this regard would be to take real indian people and see what were they called by other historians as Herodotus ,Procopius or Heuntsang.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you are contradicting yourself.
Yes I knew it from your initial response that you are not supporting the agni kula legend.
I replied just to make it more emphatic that wrong history can sometimes take a life of its own which in turn is exacerbated by our own "educated" (read JNU and the like ) historians who tow the western line as if they are still colonial slaves and when the "real historians" publish in vernacular languages they are considered "Not peer reviewed"!
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Feb 12 2007, 04:36 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Feb 12 2007, 04:36 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Note if Chauhans were Fire born there Gotra would have been Vashist.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is not necessary that if some one is termed agni-kula their gotra automatically becomes vasiShTha. The rules for kShatriya as per the gotra-pravara section of the kalpa sUtra is clear. If he does not remember or have an original gotra he takes that of his brahminical Acharya for ritual purposes. We do find clans called agni-kula having other gotras because of their Acharyas.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right. I was just pointing out that since Chauhans have Vatsa Gotra, if they had connection with Rishi Vashishta, they would have potentially used Vashisht Gotra.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Feb 12 2007, 04:36 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Feb 12 2007, 04:36 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Middle of 16th century work, Prithviraj Raso is the first time Chauhans are mentioned as Agnivanshi. (Only a small kernel of this work is accurate).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are possible earlier reference in the for this-- a bhaviShyata purANa recension that dates earlier than 16th cent for certain, perhaps around 1200s. Of course one can argue interpolation and the like but definitely it seems to have entered the bhaviShyata purANa recension before 1500. The agnikula myth itself is fairly old because we see it in padma-gupta's account though in that the chAhamAnas are not mentioned. At least in the Khichi-chauhan version of the myth we find chAhamAnas mentions as the primary heroes of the agni-kula who finally destroyed the mlechCha-dAnavas. So it means by the medieaval period this idea had gained wide acceptance.
[right][snapback]64305[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Possibly so, but Hammira Mahakavya was written under the auscpices of the Tomar Rajput king of Gwalior in 15th century A.D. and this writer had no idea about the Agnikula legend and ofcourse the earlier Prithviraj Vijay is silent about it too.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The main problem starts beacuse of our excessive reliance on foreign authors and terminologies given by them<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is not the problem. I believe that specialists have enough expertise to know how to deal with primary (original texts) and secondary (translations and primary interpretations) or for that matter tertiary (secondary interpretations and/or proposals and conjectures) data. Mentioning data doesn't mean reliance on these. It means that these points are being raised, for which there must be an explanation, that is why it needs to be examined.
The main problem is rather that certain data may be pleasing and others not, but that is not historiography.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->A better approach in this regard would be to take real indian people and see what were they called by other historians as Herodotus ,Procopius or Heuntsang.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The data as supplied by these classical and Chinese authors aren't contradicting the traditional Indian sources. The whole Scythian myth was unknown till the Cunninghams, Tod's etc. started their conjectures in the 19th century, unknown before that time, and which was never an established fact.
Unfortunately some outdated works quoted in other works containing these conjectures are still being cited as facts, which they certainly are not.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->When we equate Sakas with Scythian and attest their presence in Indus region from ancient times we can not think that there would have been boundaries to restrict their to and fro movement between central asia and northwest , and distances between Parama ,Kamboja ,Tukharas ,Sindh Peshwar ,Sogandia ,Parthia,were even some times less than southern and northern parts of present indian nation
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is also not an issue, but the nomenclature is and the clear identity of any group.
And there was a relatively greater boundary between Inner subcontinental areas (Aaryaavarta) as compared with the Trans-HinduKush areas. We oftener meet Indian people considering "Inner India" as their cultural and political soil than Central-Asia (Trans-Oxiana). The peripheral areas were considered as the ones of the Mleccha ganas (Praakrita speaking, and transitional from Indo-Arya to Iranic).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We can not forget the existence of a nation of Sakas called Scythia by author Periplus of Eurythrian sea and Sindhu Sauvira by native scholars at the same place with in India. Similary movement of Turusakas and Bala hords in to and out of indian lands.These Tur sah or tur saka are recorded as per Iranian records ruling north west and at the same time we are finding the rise of Tur and tomars of Indian Jats Rajputs or Gujjars .Similarly Paramabhattaraka Balas are reported with their genealogies shifting from Indian names to Turanian names and at the same time emergence of Balas of Indian Jats gujjar or Rajputs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One thing no researcher must ever forget is the timeline: the mentioned Periplous is a work from the first century CE. Sindhu Sauviira is a very ancient Janapada predating any mentioning of Shakas, "Bala hords" or the folk etymological "Tur sah" equated with "Tur saka" and "Turusaka" (the correct word is: Turushka, which word is neither Vedic nor ancient. Its use in literature: m. pl. (also = -raShka) the Turks Kathâsaritsâgara Râjatarangini Prab. &c.; sg. a Turk Kathâsaritsâgara xxxvii.)
The word Gurjara is neither ancient
Another folk etymological conjecture is to link "Turanian" with "Indian", which was also hardly known before the 19th century. Most people involved with these theories are not specialists in (Indian) languages, some of whose work I have read myself to confirm this.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So many times we are seeing the same race moving at different times and being treated as a different groups.
Again we can not rule out the fact that people from Parthia and Parma called parthihar ,parthavas ,parmaras did come and established their rule and most probably gave rise to some legends of Agani kula nature.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is why researchers needs to look at primary texts first and not secondary ones as primary. Secondary works are filled with interpretations which need to be examined critically.
The whole issue of Paramaras is explained by Yashwant: Paramaras are from the south (like Sholankis/Chaulukyas and many other families). They were initially the only Agnikulas.
Pratiharas have nothing to do with Parthavas, neither etymologically, which last are rather known as Pahlavas.
Thus, matters are much more complicated, that is why we need primary texts and exact quotes coupled with exact timelines.
On request of many I have split the page into a high bandwidth version and a low bandwidth version (for people who are still using dial up connections):
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Mar 14 2007, 12:32 PM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Mar 14 2007, 12:32 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Does any one know about Raja Bhoja's victory over muslims?
Would people know how various hindu temples were defended by Hindus (rajputs and others) when muslims cam to destroy them in medieveal India? (Muslims actually had a well developed plan whereby there army travelled with masons and architects to bring down the temples).
What do we collectively know about this topic and why is that JNU historians and western historians have always portrayed that wars between hindus and muslims "never had religious connotation" despite evidence of temple destruction all around?
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Jul 12 2007, 10:40 PM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Jul 12 2007, 10:40 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Please read some inscriptions of the time of Maharana Kumbha. These point out how conscious the hindu rulers were in protecting Hinduism. http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Maharana_Kumbha
-Digvijay[right][snapback]71127[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Awesome page
Two questions, would appreciate if any IF member could answer them:
1. Chandragupta Maurya defeated Seleucus Nicator and then married the Greek general's daughter. Did ChandraGupta have any children from this Greek woman?
2. History books talk of Maharani Padmini of Chittor as being breathtakingly beautiful. Is there any original painting of Maharani Padmini as I have often wondered what she looked like?
Who created this false image of Hindus not being a warrior clan and also that Hindus in present times cannot retaliate against Muslim atrocities, as Hindus believe in Ahimsa?
Hindus were probably the best warriors in the ancient world.
Mahabharat and Ramayan talk of wars.
In the past Hindu Empires like Maurya Empire included what are present India as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Also, when western historians talk of Alexander conquest of India, they mention that Alexander won King Porus (even this is disputed by some historians). King Porus was the ruler of just a small Kingdom and not the ruler of whole India. What Western historians conveniently fail to mention is that according to ancient Greek sources, Alexander's men feared the Nanda Empire to the east (in modern day Bihar and Bengal). His men refused to travel any further to challenge them, which is why Alexander had no choice but to retreat from India.
Anyway, coming back to the main topic some people think the rot in India started with King Ashoka. When Ashoka embraced Buddhism, he disbanded his army. Thus his subjects started talking of Ahimsa and gradually lost the warrior mindset, which did immense harm to India in the long run. This could have been one of the reasons why Islamic invasions may have been successful in the coming centuries.
Also, Gandhiâs talk of Ahimsa in 20th century also did more damage than good as some common Hindus masses started talking of things like if Gandhiâs Ahimsa got India Independence (some Indians still believe this theory) then Ahimsa must be really good. Fact is in 1940s Brits had asked American help for the Brits to keep ruling over India which Americans refused plus after Indian Navy uprising etc., the Brits saw the writing on the wall and knew it was âpack upâ time from India so it was not really Gandhiâs Ahimsa that helped in India getting Independence from Brit rule.
But later Commies and âpseudo-secularâ parties in India have cleverly used Gandhiâs Ahimsa to purposely create false impression amongst Hindu masses(i.e. brainwash Hindus) that Indian Muslims can do anything against Hindus but Hindus cannot retaliate because Hindus believe in Ahimsa.
Thus the concept of Ahimsa became a stick to beat Hindus time and again after Independence by inculcating guilt feeling amongst Hindus that Hindus cannot be aggressive or retaliate because Hindus believe in Ahimsa. Leftist press in India became a partner with these commie scums to reinforce this false image amongst Hindu masses.
