11-03-2005, 08:29 AM
Traitors are those who try to glorify their community by denigrating and falsifying the history of other communitiesâthis applies to that other postor and you.
As for your other rambling speech (yawn) Iâll just repeat some of my other posts.
On the so-called Jat resistance:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the reign of Ala-ud-din Khalji the historian Barani writes: "The people were brought to such a state of obedience that one revenue officer would string together twelve khuts, muqaddams, and <b>chaudharies</b> together by the neck and enforce payment by blows." These Jat village headmen were so impoverished that they could not afford to buy horses or weapons; and their wives had to serve as maid-servants in the houses of Muslims to make a living.
This is your wonderful Jat resistance? A few dandas from the Turks and you grovel before them and pay revenue while your women have to become maid-servants?
<b>The fact remains that Muslim rule was fairly consistent over Delhi, Agra, Punjab, Haryana...all areas inhabited by Jats. Coincidence? And the Turks had it fairly easy over these areas...only when they attempted to invade Rajputana, South India, the Himalyan region, and Orissa were they finally defeated.</b> But even after that they continued to rule over the Jats in Delhi-Haryana until the Mughal invasion.
This shows how feeble the Jats were. Only when Aurangzeb was involved in the wars against the Marathas and Rajputs did the Jats get an opportunity to plunder and increase their resources. <b>Even then it was the patronage of Jaipur rulers that allowed them to come up...but the Jats turned against their fellow Hindu benefactors and served in the armies of Mughal generals like Safdar Jung. They weren't true to their salt (namak-haram)</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the origin of Rajputs:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.airavat.com/Guerrilla%20Warfare.pdf
It says: "The destruction of the old Hindu kingdoms in North India however cleared the way for a new phenomenon that would dominate Indian history for the next six hundred years---the Rajputs. With titles of Rana, Rai, or Rawal these Rajaputra[2] families ruled small estates and controlled outlying forts in the old kingdoms---in Ajmer the Rajaputras were all Chauhans while in Kannauj they belonged to various clans that had formerly ruled that kingdom or had migrated there from other parts of India. With the simultaneous demise of those two kingdoms and their ruling families these Rajputs now became the first line of defense against further Muslim expansion after 1192.
[2]Literally King's son i.e. Prince, this title was known since ancient times; the Buddha was called a Rajaputra; Harshvardhan of Thanesar called himself a Rajaputra before succeeding his brother on the throne of Kannauj. The other words for princes in North India were Rajanya, Rajkumar and Yuvraj but by the time of the Pratihars (Circa 8th Century) Rajaputra had also come to designate an administrative office in several Northern and Central Indian dynasties."
So when talking about Rajputs you have to see the origin of the word and not the people since they are of the same stock as other Indians. And with regard to the Saka-Kushans it goes on to say: "At the start of the Common Era the Sakas (Scythians) and Kushans (Yeuh-chi) from Central Asia had established their kingdoms in northwestern India. These Saka-Kushans were the ancestors of the Turks and they used both the composite bow and the curved sword called the scimitar---however the blade of this sword was very broad. The Indian warrior clans, ancestors of the Rajputs, adopted these new weapons and eventually overthrew the invaders from different parts of North India[39]. Inscriptions and statues from that period depict warriors astride horses carrying these weapons while paying homage to their clan-goddess.
[39] According to European historians of the 19th Century the Rajputs were descended from these same Sakas and Kushans! However they did not cite actual evidence to back these claims."
So you see there was no real evidence cited by the European historians...the Saka-Kushans were foreigners who had a cultural impact on the local people but they were eventually defeated and overthrown.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As for your other rambling speech (yawn) Iâll just repeat some of my other posts.
On the so-called Jat resistance:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the reign of Ala-ud-din Khalji the historian Barani writes: "The people were brought to such a state of obedience that one revenue officer would string together twelve khuts, muqaddams, and <b>chaudharies</b> together by the neck and enforce payment by blows." These Jat village headmen were so impoverished that they could not afford to buy horses or weapons; and their wives had to serve as maid-servants in the houses of Muslims to make a living.
This is your wonderful Jat resistance? A few dandas from the Turks and you grovel before them and pay revenue while your women have to become maid-servants?
<b>The fact remains that Muslim rule was fairly consistent over Delhi, Agra, Punjab, Haryana...all areas inhabited by Jats. Coincidence? And the Turks had it fairly easy over these areas...only when they attempted to invade Rajputana, South India, the Himalyan region, and Orissa were they finally defeated.</b> But even after that they continued to rule over the Jats in Delhi-Haryana until the Mughal invasion.
This shows how feeble the Jats were. Only when Aurangzeb was involved in the wars against the Marathas and Rajputs did the Jats get an opportunity to plunder and increase their resources. <b>Even then it was the patronage of Jaipur rulers that allowed them to come up...but the Jats turned against their fellow Hindu benefactors and served in the armies of Mughal generals like Safdar Jung. They weren't true to their salt (namak-haram)</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the origin of Rajputs:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.airavat.com/Guerrilla%20Warfare.pdf
It says: "The destruction of the old Hindu kingdoms in North India however cleared the way for a new phenomenon that would dominate Indian history for the next six hundred years---the Rajputs. With titles of Rana, Rai, or Rawal these Rajaputra[2] families ruled small estates and controlled outlying forts in the old kingdoms---in Ajmer the Rajaputras were all Chauhans while in Kannauj they belonged to various clans that had formerly ruled that kingdom or had migrated there from other parts of India. With the simultaneous demise of those two kingdoms and their ruling families these Rajputs now became the first line of defense against further Muslim expansion after 1192.
[2]Literally King's son i.e. Prince, this title was known since ancient times; the Buddha was called a Rajaputra; Harshvardhan of Thanesar called himself a Rajaputra before succeeding his brother on the throne of Kannauj. The other words for princes in North India were Rajanya, Rajkumar and Yuvraj but by the time of the Pratihars (Circa 8th Century) Rajaputra had also come to designate an administrative office in several Northern and Central Indian dynasties."
So when talking about Rajputs you have to see the origin of the word and not the people since they are of the same stock as other Indians. And with regard to the Saka-Kushans it goes on to say: "At the start of the Common Era the Sakas (Scythians) and Kushans (Yeuh-chi) from Central Asia had established their kingdoms in northwestern India. These Saka-Kushans were the ancestors of the Turks and they used both the composite bow and the curved sword called the scimitar---however the blade of this sword was very broad. The Indian warrior clans, ancestors of the Rajputs, adopted these new weapons and eventually overthrew the invaders from different parts of North India[39]. Inscriptions and statues from that period depict warriors astride horses carrying these weapons while paying homage to their clan-goddess.
[39] According to European historians of the 19th Century the Rajputs were descended from these same Sakas and Kushans! However they did not cite actual evidence to back these claims."
So you see there was no real evidence cited by the European historians...the Saka-Kushans were foreigners who had a cultural impact on the local people but they were eventually defeated and overthrown.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->