Talk:Rajput

Rajputs are the decendents of old vedic Kshatriyas. Hence, there is need to add thier varna as Kshatriya

It is clearly proved in a book named "Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas" by "Kumar Cheda Singh Verma" that the Rajputs are decendents of the old vedic Kshatriyas. The word "Rajput" is derived from the word "Rajputra", which is a term used to denote "Kshatriya" in ancient hindu texts. I have provided the reference with a link. You can check it and the varna of Rajputs as Kshatriya.

I request you to add the following things:

1) Varna: Kshatriya, The varna of Rajputs is Kshatriya. Hence, varna should be included as Kshatriya. It should be added in infobox and also the places were the varna is discussed.

2) Origin: The Rajputs are originated from the old Vedic Kshatriyas. While a few clans may have origins in pastoral or Shudra communities, that doesn't mean the whole Rajput community is of that origin. It is clearly proven in the book "Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas" by "Kumar Cheda Singh Verma" that the 'Rajput',' 'Kshatriya,' 'Thakur,' 'Chattri,' and 'Rajputra' are all equivalent terms used to denote ancient Vedic Kshatriyas who belonged to a royal bloodline of kings. In conclusion, it is clearly proved that Rajputs are descendants of ancient Vedic Kshatriyas, and their varna is Kshatriya.

3) Remove the lines where it is written that Rajputs are of Pastoral, Shudra or Nomadic tribe origin. And add "Rajputs are decendants of vedic Kshatriyas".

4) Please replace "The term Rajput covers various patrilineal clans historically associated with warriorhood: several clans claim Rajput status, although not all claims are universally accepted. According to modern scholars, almost all Rajput clans originated from peasant or pastoral communities." With "The term Rajput covers various patrilineal Kshatriya clans historically associated with warriorhood. The Rajputs are descendants of ancient Vedic Kshatriyas."

Link of refrence = https://books.google.co.in/books?id=SFUoAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=kshatriya+and+would+be+kshatriya&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6wsjn3OaFAxUZmq8BHWrMAjEQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=Rajput&f=false

Gaurav Bisen Powar (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right brother. These changes are very essential for this page. If anyone can do these changes then it will be good for this page. Alex Cupper (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas (1904) by Kumar Cheda Singh Verma is not a reliable source. Use only up-to-date academic sources for caste content, and never anything published during the British Raj. See WP:RAJ. Bishonen | tålk 22:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC).

"Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas " is one of the most reliable book when it comes to real history and origin of Rajputs. It is totally based on the real evidences that proves Rajputs are decendants of Kshatriyas. Also, it is not based on British Raj sources. All the theories regarding the origin of Rajputs is discussed in this book and the conclusion is that "Rajputs are decendants of Kshatriyas".

I request you to edit the following things:

1) Varna: Kshatriya, The varna of Rajputs is Kshatriya. Hence, varna should be included as Kshatriya. It should be added in infobox and also the places were the varna is discussed.

2) Origin: The Rajputs are originated from the old Vedic Kshatriyas. While a few clans may have origins in pastoral or Shudra communities, that doesn't mean the whole Rajput community is of that origin. It is clearly proven in the book "Kshatriyas and Would-be Kshatriyas" by "Kumar Cheda Singh Verma" that the 'Rajput',' 'Kshatriya,' 'Thakur,' 'Chattri,' and 'Rajputra' are all equivalent terms used to denote ancient Vedic Kshatriyas who belonged to a royal bloodline of kings. In conclusion, it is clearly proved that Rajputs are descendants of ancient Vedic Kshatriyas, and their varna is Kshatriya.

3) Remove the lines where it is written that Rajputs are of Pastoral, Shudra or Nomadic tribe origin. And add "Rajputs are decendants of vedic Kshatriyas".

4) Please replace "The term Rajput covers various patrilineal clans historically associated with warriorhood: several clans claim Rajput status, although not all claims are universally accepted. According to modern scholars, almost all Rajput clans originated from peasant or pastoral communities." With "The term Rajput covers various patrilineal Kshatriya clans historically associated with warriorhood. The Rajputs are descendants of ancient Vedic Kshatriyas.

Gaurav Bisen Powar (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The source is unreliable, already mentioned above! Ekdalian (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, Gaurav Bisen Powar, what do you mean by saying the book "is not based on British Raj sources"? It's from 1904! If it's based on sources that are still older than the British Raj, then that's all the worse. I repeat: Use only up-to-date academic sources for caste content. If you don't listen to advice from experienced users, you will have a difficult time here. Bishonen | tålk 19:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC).

References

Rajput and Rajputra are two different words

@LukeEmily, The words Rajput and Rajputra are not the same, Rajputra means son of a king, there are kings in every caste, tribe and varna, so will all these kings be considered Rajputs? In the Ramayana, Meghnatha is described as the Rajputra and even an inscription at Huna Toramana declares him as Rajputra. So linking the present Rajputs with the ancient Rajputras is baseless or else the word Rajputra should be explained correctly in this article. 2409:4085:8187:B581:0:0:35C:80B0 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote containing Rajput (surname)

If Rajput (surname) exists, should a hatnote containing the same exist at this page? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: there needs to be a discussion before a third opinion can be provided. In any event, yes, the hatnote should obviously be included. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Demographics

Newspaper source are problematic for demographic purpose. It is not that we can't use them as they are not official but they often contradict each other and Indian journalists now a days are known for exaggerated claims on baseless grounds. See for example Dympies these sources contradict your data of demographics in Uttar Pradesh.

Thakurs or Rajputs constitute around 10-13% of the State population and their vote could affect the prospects of a party in Ghaziabad, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Meerut, Saharanpur, Muzaffarnagar, Kairana, and Bijnor but this time the BJP hasn’t fielded any Thakur candidate from these seats.

from The Hindu. A News18 source say that they are 7%. here [1]. Admantine123 (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Admantine123, India had its last caste census way back in 1931. However, Bihar and Nepal did conduct caste census recently so I took their figures from there only. For other states, we depend on newspaper based figures. I do agree with you that newspapers sometimes present exaggerated figures. But ditching them altogether would be regressive. We should address this issue by preferring the lower (conservative) figure. As you said, the figures for UP vary from 7% to 8% to 10-13% in different newspapers. In this case, we should pick the lowermost figure ie 7% (News18 source) as this figure is least likely to be exaggerated.

Unfortunately, no section talks about demographic data at present. Our goal should be to make this page more and more informative and for that, such content is very important as it gives a rough idea of the community's share in population within a state. Dympies (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure about figuring out our own average based on two sources as i can present several other sources which gives different figure. You are however free to add Bihar's data as it is officially verified. Admantine123 (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Rajput is not kstriya...Actually kstriya caste originate from brahmin(Source Manuscript).

Rajput is not Kstriya ..They are claiming without proof.Actually Kstriya originate from brahmin(source Manuscript).They are misguiding people by own story telling without proof. Bishwarup Dubey (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent removal of content from "Early References"

This is about recent removal of content from "Early References" section by Ekdalian. He considers the content "unnecessary", so he thinks its necessary to revert it along with personally attacking me in the edit summary. Anyways, lets come to the point. The authors in both the cited refs are reputed ones and they have mentioned the references to Rajputra in 11th-12th century medieval texts from Kashmir while discussing the Rajput caste. This makes it WP:DUE. Quote from the first source (page 148) : The rajaputras began to form a loose federation of castes well before the twelfth century in a manner characteristic of the Indian social system.

Now, from the second source (page 293): By the twelfth century the term Rajaputra or 'king's son' had approximately acquired the connotations of the 'Rajput' caste and the process of landed settlement had proceeded far enough for the term to have become a widespread assimilative category.

These are clear references to the Rajput caste. The authors here have written about the medieval texts containing the term "rajputra" because they must have seen some merit, and we have no authority to question them with our WP:OR.

Ekdalian, since last one year, you are desperately trying to dissociate "Rajputra" from "Rajput". You tried to recreate the page "Rajputra" here despite the community's decision to keep it as a redirect. I advise you to read the "Emergence as a community" section to see a large number of modern scholars saying that the term "rajputra" had become what we today call "Rajput caste" by 12th century. Dympies (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Although I agree with the fact that the term "Rajputra" was often used to describe the rajput caste but it is not always meant for this particular caste only. The princes in many other kingdoms of northern India were described by the same term and you are putting a lot of stress on this word, which is completely WP:UNDUE. The term is no longer used to denote this caste as they are formed from the people belonging to various social strata over the time. Here is the relevant quote from Andre Wink's book [2] which clearly says that the claim of royal born is completely unfounded for most of the groups consisting Rajput caste.

"The rise of the Gurjara-Pratihara empire in North India, then, instead of a military response to Islam, represents a broad process of settlement and the formation of a landed aristocracy, concomitant with the transformation of pastoral-nomadic groups formerly beyond the pale of Hindu civilization and their assimilation in a new state. Behind the military confrontation between Hindus and Muslims we perceive a general expansion of state and economy from the post-Gupta period and coinciding with the Arab-Muslim occupation of Sind. The picture disclosed is one of a landed aristocracy of mixed origin, a blending of a minority of Indianized immigrants and a majority of indigenous groups of pastoralists and hill-tribes, consolidating itself through political ties and alliances amongst clans and through marriage networks and fabricated genealogies. In short, a process of development occurred which after several centuries culminated in the formation of new groups with the identity of ‘Rajputs’. The predecessors of the Rajputs, from about the eighth century, rose to politico-military prominence as an open status group or estate of largely illiterate warriors who wished to consider themselves as the reincarnates of the ancient Indian kshatriyas. The term ‘Rajput’ or Rajaputra initially denoted nothing more than a chief holding a number of villages. The claim of being kshatriyas (a concept of doubtful etymological origins) was, of course, historically completely unfounded. The Rajputs, as well as other autochthonous Indian gentry groups who claimed kshatriya status by way of putative Rajput descent, differed widely from the classical varna of kshatriyas which, as depicted in the literature, was made up of the aristocratic, urbanite and educated clans who became known as the progenitors of the antibrahmanic religions of Buddhism and Jainism and who, according to legend, were wiped off the earth by the brahmans in vengeance of their enmity towards them.

Admantine123 (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Very well explained, Admantine123! I completely agree with you. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Admantine123, you are taking this discussion in a completely different direction. The "Early references" section is not meant for such in-depth detailing. Here we are not discussing whether Rajputs are royal born or not and whether or not they have anything in common with Kshatriyas. Instead, we are supposed to discuss the early mentions of the terms like Rajputra, Rajput, Thakur along with commentaries from well-known modern scholars (provided these terms have been discussed along with the Rajput caste). In this particular edit, we see writers talking about mentions of Rajputra in texts like Kathasaritsagara and Rajatarangini while discussing the early Rajput history. This certainly makes it WP:DUE.

Infact, Rajatarangini is regarded as an important source for history of Rajputs as it was the first text which mentioned the clan structure of Rajputras (Rajputs). This text is widely covered in "Emergence as community" section; its absurd to question its relevance. Both of you need to stop pushing your WP:OR and give the due respect to scholars.

And Admantine123, you removed one more line from "Early references" section here with a misleading explanation over Rajputra and "son of king". The content you removed was about the term Rajput rather than Rajputra and also, it was in context of the caste. From next time, before clicking the "publish changes" button, you must think twice. Dympies (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)