08-28-2006, 08:59 PM
Quote...
When you go into a debate you either have to convince or be convinced.
Digvijay ji
Ten men can take a horse to a pool but no one can make it drink.
For a discussion you have to answer my points I have to answer yours. Right.
Now I asserted that as per the genealogy records and other observations by different historians and link of unbiased rajput sites.
Rajputs are the sons of different ruling tribes including huns ,gujjars ,bhars ,jats ,brahmans ,meds.Ahirs,dogras,nepali,etc.etc. who intermarried and adopted a new title rajput .Foreign rajput tribes as huns merged with native goups of rajput as chandels and a new social group was formed.
What gulleria ji and you want to say is rajputs are present from vedic period as a distinct group and called as rajputra earlier ....Ok .
Now I asked if it was so than show that rajputra was used for some goup of people not as a title by some king or used in vedas as you claim and why the use of such words as rajanya was discontinued.
You could not answer a single querry.
Again I asked wether present day Hun rajput were present in vedic period
You didn't reply.
As truth you can't say as it will shatter your fancied fabricated ancesstory built over a period of time just to cater to a false ego.
This is the difference between JATS and RAJPUTS.
As when some historians said that they could be related to saka yeuazhi or kushan they happily accepted saying our great barbaric ancestor never knowing whether true or false ,but when real facts are exposed about ancestory of rajputs in the form of presence of hun rajputs in rajput samaj you are simply clinging on to a frabricated history.We will never deny our ancesstors even if from a lower group for some imaginery king.
You keep on repeating the social custom difference between jats and rajput in case of women ,I agree, There is no difference or point of argument over that .
Secondly you say similarity of clans does not mean same people I don't deny that .
I just point out that when Chandels in their historical records are written as bhars earlier.
Does that carry weight or not ?
If Soda rajput dahir call him brahman earlier .Does that carry any weight?
I ask rajput huns are present in present Huns ,does that carry any weight.
If guhilots call themselves Vipr in their official records does that carry any weight?
Similarly if sammas inscriptions relate them to a different cast earlier does that carry any weight?
There are so many points but in nutshell I would like you to be honest with facts and arguments.
When you go into a debate you either have to convince or be convinced.
Digvijay ji
Ten men can take a horse to a pool but no one can make it drink.
For a discussion you have to answer my points I have to answer yours. Right.
Now I asserted that as per the genealogy records and other observations by different historians and link of unbiased rajput sites.
Rajputs are the sons of different ruling tribes including huns ,gujjars ,bhars ,jats ,brahmans ,meds.Ahirs,dogras,nepali,etc.etc. who intermarried and adopted a new title rajput .Foreign rajput tribes as huns merged with native goups of rajput as chandels and a new social group was formed.
What gulleria ji and you want to say is rajputs are present from vedic period as a distinct group and called as rajputra earlier ....Ok .
Now I asked if it was so than show that rajputra was used for some goup of people not as a title by some king or used in vedas as you claim and why the use of such words as rajanya was discontinued.
You could not answer a single querry.
Again I asked wether present day Hun rajput were present in vedic period
You didn't reply.
As truth you can't say as it will shatter your fancied fabricated ancesstory built over a period of time just to cater to a false ego.
This is the difference between JATS and RAJPUTS.
As when some historians said that they could be related to saka yeuazhi or kushan they happily accepted saying our great barbaric ancestor never knowing whether true or false ,but when real facts are exposed about ancestory of rajputs in the form of presence of hun rajputs in rajput samaj you are simply clinging on to a frabricated history.We will never deny our ancesstors even if from a lower group for some imaginery king.
You keep on repeating the social custom difference between jats and rajput in case of women ,I agree, There is no difference or point of argument over that .
Secondly you say similarity of clans does not mean same people I don't deny that .
I just point out that when Chandels in their historical records are written as bhars earlier.
Does that carry weight or not ?
If Soda rajput dahir call him brahman earlier .Does that carry any weight?
I ask rajput huns are present in present Huns ,does that carry any weight.
If guhilots call themselves Vipr in their official records does that carry any weight?
Similarly if sammas inscriptions relate them to a different cast earlier does that carry any weight?
There are so many points but in nutshell I would like you to be honest with facts and arguments.