Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

In the Wikipedia page about Rajputs,Islam is mentioned in the Religion section.This is straightforward outrageous and unacceptable.Rajputs are simply against Islam,millions of Rajputs like Maharana Pratap have died protecting Hindu religion from Islam.Today if Hindu religion stands prosperous is due to sacrifice of Rajputs or else India would simply be under Sharia law. Remove this as soon as possible as the Rajputs have never been Muslim,together we can make Wikipedia more reliable and trust worthy. Thanking you 2409:40C1:3C:BE82:ECB2:D039:BA3A:1B0C (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please be specific about the change you would like to see (for example, remove the following text from the article). If you're asking for the removal of sourced content, you will need to explain why the source is not reliable, not appropriate, or improperly used. RegentsPark (comment) 13:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2024

Please remove Islam from Religion section of this Wikipedia page.Rajputs are Hindus only,they are not even Sikhs. 2409:40C1:3C:9478:A827:57A9:FD86:438E (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done We determine what to write based on the reliable sources, not our personal opinions (as true as they may or may not be). In order to Islam removed, you'll need to show at least 1 reliable source which says Islam is not a part of Rajput, and then you'll need consensus: Wikipedia:Consensus. Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput identity in Dharmashastras, politics and historical facts.

Since, editors have been discussing texts and scriptures mentioning Rajputs, adding a section on the talk page summarizing the opinions of texts, mughals and brahmins. The bottom line is that Brahmins have disagreed with the Kshatriya status, and hence the religious texts says that the Rajputs may fight like a Kshatriya but have to follow the rituals of a shudra. It also shows that the Kshatriya claim is only in political sense.

Ananya Vajpeyi discusses the Rajputs in the context of Hindu Sanskrit Dharmashastra texts and shows the dissonance between the meaning of Rajput in the practical political arena versus the literal meaning of rajaputa in Hindu religious texts and how both meanings could coexist.[1] The Jatinirnayaprakaranama of Sudrakamalakara, an early 1600s Dharmaśāstra text written by Kamalakarabhatta for ugra or rajaputa is the projeny of a Kshatriya father and Shudra mother. Vajpeyi clarifies that although ugra literally means scary or fierce, in this context the medieval writers only used this term in the context of his qualities as a warrior. Seshasakrishna's Sudracarasiromani, a text that predates Sudrakamalakara also supports this definition for a rajaputa. There is a professional and religious distinction: a rajaputa may fight, however, he has to follow the duties similar to sudras or sudrasamana. She says Ugra or rajaputa is listed as one of the six types of a sankarajati(mixed caste) given in the text, whose father's varna is higher than that of the mother, and are thus an anulomajas or "one born in accordance with the natural flow". There are five other types of anulomajas unions given by Kamalakarabhatta. Thus, as per the medieval Brahminical Dharmashastras, Rajputs are a mixed jati.[2]

In the political context, the word meaning edges towards Kshatriya although in Hindu religious texts rajaputa is closer to Shudra.[3] Some emigrant Brahmins may have been involved in Rajputising tribes to the Rajput status.[3]

Despite this, Vajpayi states that, periodically, Brahmins have characterized Rajput as self-seekers, and stated that they are not real Kshatriyas.[4]

Other than establishing marital ties with already established Rajput families, constructing false genealogies and adopting titles such as "rana", Rajputising also involved starting the pretensions of rituals of twice-borns ( wearing sacred thread etc.).[5]

However, one ritual that was not given much significance was the Abhisheka. When a clan leader was made king by the Mughal emperor, the Tika mark on the head of leader by the Muslim emperor confirmed his Royal status and the Hindu ritual of Abhisheka was only of secondary importance. Aurangzeb eventually stopped the custom of Tika and the custom was replaced by bowing or taslim to the Mughal emperor, who would return the salute. This possibly implies that it was still up to the Mughal emperor to ultimately give or deny the Rajput status to the clan leader.[6]

The description of Rajputs in the Hindu Dharmashastras, self image that the Rajputs presented, and the Mughal view of the Rajputs was disparate. This incongruity, according to Vajpayi makes the Rajput identity Polyphonous.[3] LukeEmily (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting the source again it seems[2]. This is after you were warned by Fowler&fowler for doing the same exact thing with the same source[3][4], it is clear that you do not understand what Vajpeyi is saying so you should stop bringing her up. Dympies (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can feel free correct my misunderstanding of the source. I have stricken out the last part the Ratnahastin objected to - will read it again. Please see the entire discussion with Fowler&Fowler. It was left incomplete. Fowler&Fowler was going to post a summary of the source since he had not read the source during the discussion and had just received a copy later. There was no discussion of the source after F&F got the copy. The issue at the time was WP:DUE since we had not discussed any scriptures on the page. Trangabellum did not agree but I agreed with F&F at the time. So there was no consensus. I was grateful to F&F for suggesting an excellent Sanksrit book - and I got a copy of it. (I need to thank F&F for the suggestion - the book is excellent). But the context has changed now. Too many irrelevant scriptures have been added since then. Also, after the discussion with F&F, I had contacted a retired Sanskrit scholar (well known and hence I cannot name the scholar here and the person does not edit wikipedia to the best of my knowledge) and requested to look at the sudrakamalakara (original sanskrit text) and compare it with Vajpayee. He had agreed that Vajpayee's interpretation was 100% accurate. He also told me how to get a copy of the images of the handwritten scripture. Anyway, that would come under WP:OR so the opinion of the Sanksrit scholar can be dismissed if you want. However, if you feel my interpretation of the source is wrong, please feel can you correct it?LukeEmily (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Click a footnote link above (or 'show') to view refs.

  1. ^ Ananya Vajpeyi 2005, pp. 257–258.
  2. ^ Ananya Vajpeyi 2005, pp. 257: section RAJPUTS ACCORDING TO THE DHARMASASTRA: Whatever the realities of Rajputization among powerful tribal families seeking to enter the varna system with a certain status, and emigre brahmanas helping them to do so, by brahmanical dharmasastra definitions prevalent in Shivaji’s lifetime, Rajputs are a miscegenated jati produced from non-alike fathers and mothers of specified types. According to the Sudrakamalakara, an authoritative Sanskrit text on the dharma of sudras written by Gagabhatta’s own uncle, Kamalakarabhatta, in the early part of the seventeenth century, the progeny of a ksatriya man and a sudra woman would be an ugra, otherwise known as a rajaputa.33 Such a person does battle and is expert in wielding weapons, but he must follow the duties proper to a sudra. In Kamalakara’s classification, being a sankarajati, or mixed group, ugras, or rajaputas are sudrasamana, as goodas (or as bad as!) sudras. [footnote]‘Ugra’ literally means ‘scary’, or ‘ferocious’.In equating the ugra and the rajap"uta, medieval dharma«s"astra writers nodoubt intended to refer to the warlike properties of the class of person they were describing.See Kamalakarabhatta, ‘Jatinirnayaprakaranam’, in his ®Sudrakamalakara,p. 255. A progeny whose father has a higher varna than the mother, as in this case,is called an anulomaja, or ‘one born in accordance with the natural flow’ (that is,the descending order) of social hierarchy, from man (superior) to woman (inferior).Kamalakara lists the ugra among the six types of anulomajas (ibid.: 254–5). An earlier text in this genre, the ®Sudracarasiromani by Sesakrsna, also provides thesame definition of a rajaputa (Ibid.: 15)
  3. ^ a b c Ananya Vajpeyi 2005, pp. 257, 258.
  4. ^ Ananya Vajpeyi 2005, pp. 258: THE POLYPHONY OF RAJPUT IDENTITY:From its earliest appearance in north India, the category of ‘Rajput’ seems to have been by definition an open and accommodating one. Repeatedly, over the course of centuries, its persistence, or reinvention, allowed politically and sometimes even economically ascendant groups, especially those with a clan-based structure, to be recruited into ksatriya status. Time and again brahmana and non-Rajput ksatriya interests denigrated it as a category for arrivistes, insinuating or charging that Rajputs were nothing but ersatz ksatriyas
  5. ^ Ananya Vajpeyi 2005, pp. 254: As the work of Sinha, Singh, Chattopadhyaya, and Thapar cumulatively shows, these included, for the ruling families of various tribes:(a) Concern with status: (i) The construction of spurious genealogies tracing descent from mythic ksatriya, or quasi-historical Rajput ancestors;and (ii) the express aspiration, often achieved through diligent pursuit over generations, to ksatriya status in the var]na hierarchy. (b) Adoption of rituals: (i) The ostentatious performance of the rituals of the twice-born castes, especially the ksatriyas; and (ii) the display of the markers of dvija ritual identity, like the wearing of the sacred thread, or the use of Vedic mantras.(c) Expansion of kinship networks: Aggressive affiliation with established Rajput families, through (i) (re)claiming long-lost kinship ties andor (ii) forming new marriage alliances (specifically, by asking for theirdaughters).(d) Change in terminology: (i) The adoption of Rajput titles like raja and rana that connoted a high birth if not royalty; and (ii) absorbing and espousing Sanskrit vocabulary in matters of state and religion, or switching
  6. ^ Ananya Vajpeyi 2005, pp. 251: (marking themselves as Hindu in contradistinction to the Muslim Mughals), including ones that installed the new head of a clan as king when an older one passed away, their most important royal ritual was not the abhiseka but the tika (literally: ‘auspicious mark’).20 This ritual was not the installation ceremony as such, but the recognition of the new king, or a confirmation of his royal status, by the Mughal emperor, who was the greater power above him (Hallissey 1977: Chapter 3, also 91–2).Clearly, the fact that it was always and only the Mughal emperor who conferred the tika, and always and only Rajput chieftains who receivedit from him, made this something of a hybrid ritual [footnote]Aurangzeb’s abolition of the tika in the twenty-second or twenty-third yearof his reign is mentioned, but not analysed in any detail, in Sarkar (1916: 100,1930: 92) and in Sharma (1962: 108). This information is drawn from the Massiri-Alamgiri. Sarkar (1916) further points out that ‘the newly created rajahs had onlyto make their bow (taslim) to the Emperor who returned their salute’. Perhaps thisindicates that Aurangzeb retained the right to confirm or deny the royal status of a Rajput designated as king.

Recent content addition in Etymology section

I removed some recently added content from "Etymology and Early references" section giving due explanation in edit summaries.[5][6][7]. This content was added by LukeEmily last week, and Luke now the WP:ONUS is on you to find consensus for the inclusion of these recent edits of yours, WP:ONUS is a policy. Ekdalian, always remember AGF and WP:ONUS, do not restore content that has no consensus for restoration yet and do not accuse other editors of POV pushing in your edit summaries, you have been warned for it already. Dympies (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that I have never been warned by an admin since I created this account in 2013; but an experienced admin has categorically pointed out how you have systematically engaged in POV pushing through slow edit warring and that's the reason you were blocked from the article. I don't want to discuss the same old story again! You are clearly reverting genuine edits citing some reason or the other. I have reverted to the last best version and shall keep on watching this article closely. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not attack other editors or try to poison the well against them. "You are clearly reverting genuine edits citing some reason or the other. I have reverted to the last best version" - LukeEmily made edits and they were reverted, so it was his responsibility to discuss them here per WP:BRD that did not happen, in fact LukeEmily has edit warred to reinstate his edits in tandem with you and others. The version you have restored is not "last best version " but a POV version relying on synthesis and undue emphasis. You need to read WP:ONUS which is a policy, onus is always on those seeking inclusion to get consensus. Dympies (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BRD-NOT and WP:NPOV. The references section was meant to discuss references to Rajputra and Rajput in scriptures as well as what those words meant in those scriptures. Yet, you cherry picked some POV statements that related to emergence of a community section and added them in early references without full context. This has created a false narrative that the admin and Sitush had warned you about. In fact, even the last statement by Eaton right now has not been given in full context. I have the book and Eaton refers to Norman Ziegler's Rajput loyalties (to Mughals) paper and I have the paper too where Ziegler calls the kshatriya claim "based on myths". Ziegler further refers to the other paper that is currently on the page where he explicitly calls them non-Kshatriya. The statement by Chattopadhyay is also POV and misleading because I have the paper and he clearly calls them a mixed caste and says that the Thakur word was not hereditary(see the emergence section for f ull context). However, the way it has been written by you is giving a different meaning. The sudrakamalakara is due given that so many irrelevant scriptures have been added and it has been accepted by consensus. BTW, Metcalf has also been cherry picked and added in WP:NPOV manner. The version that was accepted was a last best version as per WP:NPOV. So I agree with @Ekdalian:. There is a lot of POV in that section even now ! LukeEmily (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LukeEmily, when you added the following things in etymology section, I never called it violation of NPOV and never said you are cherry picking :
  • BD Chattopadhyay's statement regarding mixed caste in Rajputra sub-section
  • Trooper, village headsmen and varna samkara in Rajput section
  • Nandini Kapur statement in Rajputra section
Because all these statements were being supported by cited sources and they were relevant for the section. When I never raise question on your intentions, why don't I recieve the same civil behaviour from you and Ekdalian? Do you deny that etymology section is here to discuss the terms Rajputra, Thakur and Rajput? If no, then do let us know any good reason for inclusion of content you wish to add here. You say sudrakamalakara is relevant because so many irrelevant things have been added here. Are you here to balance the things out? If you think other things are irrelevant then please explain how? If you think sources are being misrepresented, explain how. But don't give casual arguments that you will add irrelevant things because other irrelevant things exist. Dympies (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dympies, please can you quote where I have been uncivil? Pointing out issues in edits is not uncivil. I have never been rude to you etc. Sitush and admin have pointed out the same issues too. Are they also uncivil? The etymology/references section was for the inclusion of meaning of the terms as well as references in scriptures. The sudrakamalakara is relevant to etymology/references as it is discussing the word and is an early reference. I did not remove anything from the section although I might not agree with its inclusion in that section. You had added only one part of Eaton, so I added full context. I don't understand the objection.LukeEmily (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology section is not there for discussing "full context". Thats how it has been since the beginning. Also, anything like Purbiya Rajput doesn't pertain to the section. Lack of italic fonts/inverted commas in sudrakamalakara's source means the author is discussing the community rather than term. Caste has been discussed throughout the article, then how would this section differ from the rest? Dympies (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LukeEmily: - Consensus version? These changes were made by you from 30 December onwards, since then they have been constantly reverted it is your responsibility to get consensus for them per WP:ONUS, do not engage in a slow burning edit war. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ratnahastin, it's you and Dympies who are edit warring here. The version you are reverting is here after a long discussion which was held few years back. Adamantine123 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin:, please check the edit made by Abhishek0831996. As per the flowchart on WP:EDITCON, the edit before it is the consensus version. This is because he did not revert the original edit, only modified it.LukeEmily (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, Dympies does not agree with these changes [8][9], neither does [10] Abhishek0831996. So far three editors have reverted them, so consensus will be required for reinstatement, thanks. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dympies:, the sources are explaining what the word meant in the scripture(Kapur) and how it was used and when(Eaton).LukeEmily (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how. Kapur hasn't used the italic fonts for "Rajputs" as she did for "Rajaputra". There must be some reason behind that. And Eaton's edits were gross synthesis. Dympies (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do italics or fonts matter? Please explain why Eaton was synthesis - the quotes were provided. Can you rewrite based on the quotes. I have the entire book but cannot share it on wikipedia due to copyright issues. If you do not have access to those pages, you can ask someone to shhare that resource and verify the quotes.LukeEmily (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect, when you tag something you are required to explain why you tagged it per WP:DRIVEBYTAG. This unexplained mass addition of tags falls under WP:TAGBOMBING. - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tags are already explained. The discussion in this section is the dispute. I have no problems clarifying further.LukeEmily (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dympies, the word Rajput is being equated to ugra which means horrible is Sanskrit. It is obvious that she is discussing the word meaning and usage not the community. And even if she were discussing the community, why would it matter?LukeEmily (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It matters. Rajput has many synonyms. Also, the terms Rajput and Rajputra are often used interchangeably by scholars. Without italic fonts, we get no idea whether the term used in particular text is "Rajput", "Rajputra" or anything else. Dympies (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early references section is for scriptural references. Also, Kapur is explaining what the word means using a synonym.LukeEmily (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again we are just speculating. Thats not what we are supposed to do. Dympies (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dympies, what I mean is that the section discusses the word as well as the references. Etymology is for the word. References is for any early text where Rajput/Rajputra is discussed - for example Ramayana. This means scriptural references. Also, I did not understand your comment on Eaton. Can you elaborate on Eaton (why you thought it was WP:SYNTHESIS)? Can you write in your own words(in the talk page) about summary from Eaton based on the quotes. I have the book, so if you need any context or text before or after the quotes, please let me know. Also, can you provide sources for your statement:Also, the terms Rajput and Rajputra are often used interchangeably by scholars. One is a caste, other is a profession. For example, Prince Christian is a rajputra but not a rajput.LukeEmily (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LukeEmily, Ananya Vajpeyi has made it clear that the term used in sudrakamalakara is "rajapūta" (रजपूत) which has a different meaning from "rājpūt" (राजपूत) on which our page is based. Dympies (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rajputras are not used for the Rajput caste only. It is meant for nobility in ancient India. It doesn't refer to present day Rajput caste. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding disputes tagged by LukeEmily

I am creating sub-sections for all the pending disputes tagged by LukeEmily. So Luke, now you are supposed to explain your objections to the content in question. Dympies (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BD Chattopadhyaya in "Thakur" sub-section

From article: According to B.D Chattopadhyay, from 700 CE, north India's political and military landscape was dominated by large Kshatriya landowners called thakurs, some of whom were descended from pastoral tribes and central Asian invaders; they later came to be known as Rajputs.[1][disputed – discuss]

Richard M. Eaton in "Rajput" sub-section

From article: He further says that the lineages in Rajasthan which had traditionally identified themselves as kshatriya began to call themselves Rajputs in the 16th century.[2][neutrality is disputed]

References

Click a footnote link above (or 'show') to view refs.

  1. ^ Matthew S. Muehlbauer, David J. Ulbrich, ed. (2018). The Routledge History of Global War and Society. Routledge. p. 1931. ISBN 978-1317533184. The rise of the Rajputs constituted a landmark in Indian military history. Imperial historians identified the Rajputs as one of the Aryan martial races. More recently, Brajadulal Chattopadhyay (1994) has offered a social perspective about their rise to power. He writes that from 700 BCE, large Kshatriya landowners known as thakurs dominated the political and military landscape of north India. Eventually known as Rajputs, some had descended from the pastoral tribes and central Asian invaders who had merged with the settled society of north India.
  2. ^ Richard M. Eaton (2019). India in the Persianate Age: 1000–1765. University of California Press. p. 223. ISBN 978-0520325128. If the character of the Mughal state had been transformed by Akbar's Rajput policy, the meaning of 'Rajput' was also consolidated at this time. Lineages in Rajasthan that had traditionally identified themselves as kshatriya (warriors) began calling themselves Rajputs only in the sixteenth century.

Richard Eaton WP:NPOV version

Richard M. Eaton notes that after the 14th century, in Rajasthan, Malwa and Gujarat, clans of nomadic cattle-herding and cattle-rustling communities that became sedentary, began using the word Rajput for themselves, patronizing bards to rewrite their past and disassociate with their pastoral ancestry. In the fifteenth century, peasant soldiers from the east who served in the army acquired the identity of Purbiya Rajput and eventually identifying as Rajput; tribal and pastoral communities patronized bards to link their ancestors to some Kshatriya lineages. Lineages in Rajasthan which had traditionally identified themselves as kshatriya began to call themselves Rajputs in the 16th century.[1][2][3]. This is an WP:NPOV version. The current version on the article is misleading. I will add more details from the book here.LukeEmily (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC) LukeEmily (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does "Purbiya Rajput" become relevant for this para? And how does the source support this line : "clans of nomadic cattle-herding and cattle-rustling communities that became sedentary, began using the word Rajput for themselves" ?Dympies (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cattle hearding/rustling is mentioned by the source on pg 87. Purbiya is relevant because they started using the "rajput" name for themselves.LukeEmily (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of cattle herding/rustling in source doesn't make it eligible for inclusion in etymology section. Does it use inverted commas, italic fonts or phrase like "word Rajput", "name Rajput" or "term Rajput" as you interpreted? In Purbiya Rajput too, such things are absent and the source doesn't say "Purbiyas started using Rajput name" as you interpreted. Please stop this. Dympies (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop what? Please see WP:NPOV.LukeEmily (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed these concerns. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Italics or inverted commas is simply an authors choice and is irrelevant. The issue here is where and when the term was used. Please check the definition for "etymology". The bigger issue is the WP:NPOV issue because it misleads the reader.LukeEmily (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is synthesis. You are combining two sources to state something neither of them support. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one source. And it is discussing 3 different centuries. And one statement for each century. What is the synthesis? LukeEmily (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting the author when he is clearly referring to two different events and in different contexts is not going to work. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they have to be different events since they span different centuries. If you feel there is synthesis, then please correct the above summary to show a "non-synthesized" version that works.LukeEmily (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no compulsion of including the stuff at first place. I don't think we can form any content which is due for the section. Dympies (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Luke Emily's views on Purbiya. In fact, I myself wanted to add some stuff related to that but due to paucity of time couldn't do. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Click a footnote link above (or 'show') to view refs.

  1. ^ Richard M. Eaton (2019). India in the Persianate Age: 1000–1765. University of California Press. p. 87. ISBN 978-0520325128. In Gujarat, as in Rajasthan, genealogy proved essential for making such claims. To this end, local bards composed ballads or chronicles that presented their patrons as idea warriors who protected Brahmins, cows and vassals, as opposed to the livestock herding chieftains that they actually were, or had once been. As people, who created and preserved the genealogies, local bards therefore played critical roles in brokering for their clients socio-cultural transitions to a claimed Rajput status. A similar thing was happening in the Thar desert region, where from the fourteenth century onwards mobile pastoral groups gradually evolved into landed, sedentary and agrarian clans. Once again, it was bards and poets, patronized by little kings, who transformed a clan's ancestors from celebrated cattle-herders or cattle-rustlers to celebrated protectors of cattle-herding communities. The difference was subtle but critical, since such revised narratives retained an echo of a pastoral nomadic past while repositioning a clan's dynastic founder from pastoralist to non-pastoralist. The term 'Rajput', in short, had become a prestigious title available for adoption by upwardly mobile clan in the process of becoming sedentary. By one mechanism or another, a process of 'Rajputization' occurred in new states that emerged from the turmoil following Timur's invasion in 1398, especially in Gujarat, Malwa and Rajasthan.
  2. ^ Richard Eaton 2019, p. 139, [1]In the late fifteenth century, when Jaunpur was conquered by a partially revived Delhi sultanate under the Lodi sultans, Purbiya’s military manpower was contracted by brokers in central India for labour further west, in particular in Malwa. As soldiers from eastern India serving in Rajasthan and Malwa, these men acquired the identity of Purbiya Rajputs, and finally of Rajputs, a process suggesting how the military labour market itself enabled the assimilation of new groups into this emerging ethnic category. In Gujarat, as tribal and pastoral communities migrated into or near more hierarchical, agrarian societies, they too claimed Rajput identities, seeking valorization for their claims to aristocratic, or even royal, status. Bardic poets facilitated these efforts by celebrating the warrior ideals of those communities and by linking the ancestors of their chiefs with prestigious kshatriya lineages.
  3. ^ Richard M. Eaton (2019). India in the Persianate Age: 1000–1765. University of California Press. p. 223. ISBN 978-0520325128. If the character of the Mughal state had been transformed by Akbar's Rajput policy, the meaning of 'Rajput' was also consolidated at this time. Lineages in Rajasthan that had traditionally identified themselves as kshatriya (warriors) began calling themselves Rajputs only in the sixteenth century.

Migration out of India following the mutiny of 1857

I recommend we add a section on diaspora Rajputs whose ancestors left India from the present day states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar following the uprising of 1857, and the subsequent disbanding of the sepoy regiments of the Bengal army.The British preference following the uprising to recruit mainly from Punjab dried up opportunities for Rajputs, and brahmins from UP and Bihar to serve in the Indian army.The prospect of getting employment lured many from these castes to leave India. Most of them ended in the countries of Trinidad, Guayana, Mauritius and Fiji.Here is one source for that. Since I have not contributed to this article in many years, I would like experienced editors to take the lead.[1]. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Click a footnote link above (or 'show') to view refs.

  1. ^ Carter M, Bates C. Empire and locality: a global dimension to the 1857 Indian Uprising. Journal of Global History. 2010;5(1):51-73. doi:10.1017/S1740022809990337
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajput
No tags for this post.