Do you have some information about the famous musician Tansen, who was one of the Akbar's Navaratnas. Do you know whether he had converted to Islam? Is that a fact? (There is a Tansen ka makbara in Gwalior. Which means he was buried there as per muslim customs?) Also why did he convert, if he did, under which circumstances? Several others Navaratnas were Hindus who remained Hindu.
02-07-2007, 12:10 AM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2007, 12:13 AM by Bodhi.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Feb 6 2007, 01:07 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Feb 6 2007, 01:07 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is a Tansen ka makbara in Gwalior. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is it a makbara or Samadhi?
[right][snapback]64074[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is makbara. Does anyone know of any makbaras for other Hindu Navaratnas like Todarmal, Birbal or Jai Singh? Then why only for Tansen if he died a Hindu?
Here is what I found upon googling:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Having found Baiju, Tansen was beyond himself with pleasure and prostrated at the feet of Baiju, who, only with great difficulty, could calm Tansen. Baiju requested the emperor to give Tansen the great master, the highest position among his musicians and artists, which the emperor readily agreed to.
However, after some time, getting the opportunity, Tansen prayed Akbar for leave and departed for Rewa, never to return to Agra again. Akbar sent Jalaludin Khurchi to invite Tansen, but even then Tansen did not return to Agra. Akbar then sent Abul Fazal with instructions that in case Tansen did not return, he must bring him back by force, Rewa's queen, together with the Akbar pearl (which was as large as twice the size of an egg).
Seeing that a great calamity was going to fall on the Rewa ruler's family on his account, Tansen reluctantly started for Agra. But he was unhappy all the time. He could not forget the love of the rulers of Rewa, and this feeling became so strong in him that he took a vow never to sing again in Akbar's court. Akbar, however, waited for an opportunity. He gave Tansen a beautiful house in the palace to live and provided him with all amenities.
Akbar had many wives besides Jodabai, called royal begums. Among them was one called Daulatabad Begum on whom Akbar had conferred special favours. Her daughter, Mehrunisa, was extraordinarily beautiful, a woman of character, religious minded, wise and a lover of music.
Akbar took her to Tansen's garden and asked her to sing a Raag in a slightly defective manner. At the behest of her father, she started Bageshwari. The Raag reached Tansen's ears, too, who listened to it attentively.
He detected the deviation and became restless. Tansen then approached Mehrunisa. Having got her introduction, he told her about the deviation. Mehrunisa said that she could not but bow down before India's great artist, but she requested him to correct her. Tansen, who had been defying the ruler for so long, had to accept his defeat at the hands of the fair Mehrunisa. Tansen sat on the ground and began Bageshwari gradually. He lost himself in the sweet melody and Mehrunisa, too, lost her heart to Tansen. Akbar was listening to him from behind some trees, gradually Akbar appeared before Tansen. He requested him to teach music to Mehrunisa, which he accepted. Akbar was much pleased when he came to learn about their love. He arranged a music festival in order to bring this to a successful conclusion.
The music festival was held in a famous palace of Agra. When Jihan Khan's turn came, he asked for a favour. He said that Tansen be asked to proceed first.
The Emperor smiled and looked at Tansen who stood up and said that there were no clouds in the sky at the time. He would like to invite clouds and to offer their fresh and sweet water to the emperor. He asked for a golden pot to be brought and placed there. A golden vessel on a sandalwood stand was placed before the gathered audience. Tansen began with prayers to Mother Saraswathi, his guru Swami Haridas and then looking at the eager sweet face of Mehrunisa, he started Megh Raag.
A small patch of clouds began to gather in the clear sky. Gradually, the clouds began to thicken and then came the rain and drop by drop the golden pot was filled. Tansen offered the golden pot full of water to the emperor.
<span style='color:red'>Akbar married Mehrunisa with Tansen with royal decorum and Tansen embraced Islam. </span>A Persian historian of Akbar's court says that Tansen died on April 26, 1586 A.D. His body was taken to Gawalior with full royal honours and buried near the mausoleum of his spiritual guru, Muhammad Ghous.
02-07-2007, 11:23 AM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2007, 11:25 AM by Hauma Hamiddha.)
The story seems inaccurate. The commonly presented facts are roughly thus: A Sufi subversionist Sheikh Ghaus converted Ramtanu (Tansen), born of Hindu parents to Mohammedanism. In those days, as it continues to these days Hindus without firm convictions were attracted towards Islamic charlatans known as Pirs and Fuckirs. Usually, with a bunch of magic tricks, playing on the superstitions of the masses, they attracted lay Hindus and gradually subverted them till the became Mohammedans. Tansen converted under Ghaus's influence when he was living with him for a while as an adult. He married another Hindu women who had been converted by the same fellow. Tansen is a good example of how Islam can subvert a nation also by the mode commonly used by Xtians. IIRC Tansen was with the Hindu Baghela King Ramchandra before he was taken by the Mogol tyrant. I have personally met a very moderate Moslem gentleman who is a descendant of Tansen's guru Haridas. He confirmed that his family had also been converted by the Sufi but insisted that he still had strong affinities with Hindu dharma and continued to do "dev-pUja" because that was the religion of his ancestors.
Of the Nine gems the famous Birbal a Hindu by birth converted to Akbar's new-fangled nonsensical religion Deen-i-illahi. The Rajputs Mansingh and Bhagavan Das bluntly refused to be converted and expressed their displeasure when he tried to pose as a jagat-guru of the Hindus. Man Singh extensively negotiated with Akbar that there be no state interference for building new temples for the Hindus.
BTW Tansen's mazaar is in the same complex as that of the Sufi subversionist.
Somehow this resonates with the recent news article that had appeared in papers a few months back when the famous musician Ashish Khan declared that he is abandoning Islam to revert back to his ancestors' religion. He had also said that his family had never been muslims, never followed islamic customs etc, and instead had secretly worshipped Devi Saraswati, and observed pitra paksha etc.
The world rests on the arms of brave (kshatriya) like a son on those of his sire.
He, therefore, that is a brave (kshatriya), deserves respect under every circumstance. There is nothing higher in this world than bravery.
The brave (kshatriya) protects and cherishes all, and all things depend upon the brave (kshatriya).
(In my opinion) a more accurate translation would be:
Arms of the brave always support and sustain the people like (a father his) son. A brave is, for this reason, honoured by all, in all situations. There is nothing in all the three words, which is beyond (the reach of) the bravery. Brave sustains all, and all depend upon the brave.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bodhi,
Thanks for the better translation. I have updated it to the blog.
As the moon, in its waxing fortnight, develops day after day, so the royal prince [Parikshit] very soon developed luxuriantly under the care and full facilities of his guardian grandfathers.
(Srimad Bhagavatam, 1.12.311)
Abhimanyu's son Parikshit is called Rajaputra in Bhagvat Purana.
It doesn't seem to indicate that the word "Raajaputra" is a late word. With so many references present at least in the Shatasahasriiya epic, already known to Dion Chrysostomos in the 1st century CE, the word has a very ancient base.
The word "Raajaputra" can mean a "(foremost) son of the king=crown prince" as a TatpuruSha, but also a "royal son" (as the foremost son of a state/soil) as a Karmadhaaraya Samaasa. In the last sense it is a precursor to the word "Rajput".
02-10-2007, 03:58 AM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2007, 04:00 AM by Husky.)
In South India too, sons of kings were called rajaputras (as well our own Tamil or other regional word for it). Used in its old original meaning as king's son. In the epics it does not refer to the particular Kshatriya tribe called Rajputs, but is used to refer to kings' sons of all Kshatriya communities, from what I understand.
Rama, Lakshmana and Buddha were all sons of Hindu kings, hence they were rajaputras. Parikshit was the crown prince of the Pandava line, being the son of Abhimanyu. So the term also applies to him, him being a son of royalty as well.
02-10-2007, 08:09 AM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2007, 08:11 AM by Bodhi.)
Post 146 (Digvijay):
1. This Sloka is from ठरणà¥à¤¯à¤ परà¥à¤µ (araNyaka parva) of Mahabharata, specifically from that part which is known as रामà¥à¤ªà¤¾à¤à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¨à¤® (rAmopAkhyAnam). This is a truely wonderful part of the great epic, covered over 20 chapters from the chapter 257 to 276, also sometimes known as à¤à¤§à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¤à¥à¤® रामायणम - AdhyAtma rAmAyaNam (? - could not confirm this one, but think so).
This part of mahabharata is in the format of a dialog between mahaR^Si mArkaNDeya and maharaj yudhiSThir. Context is that mahAranI draupadI had been abducted by jayadratha. bhIm had chased and defeated him, and freed up mahAranI draupadi. However, the abduction of their wife had left pandavas feeling dejected. In this context, maharaj yudhiSThir laments and sadly wonders whether there ever was any human being less fortunate than pANDavas, and what had draupadi done to deserve the abduction. In response, mahaR^Si mArkaNDeya recites the story of Sri Rama, and consoles them, that even He, who is best of all men ever, had suffered the similar ordeal, but how he had upheld his dharma.
In this particular Sloka that you mentioned, Sri anjaneya is addressing mahArani sIta, and conveying the wellfare of Sri Rama. (in more accurate sense, Rishi Vyasa is addressing Sri Ganapati, in which Rishi Markandeya is addressing Maharaj YudhiSThira, in which Sri Anjaneya is addressing Sugriva and Sri Ram to debrief how He had addressed mahArani sItA)
O Sita, I am a vanara, son of Marut, messenger of Ram. With aim of seeing you, I have arrived here through the wind. Both the brothers, Ram and Lakshmana, the royal princes, are doing well, protected/guarded by Sugriva, the king of all vanaras [literal : creatures that live off the tree-branches (shakhamrig)]. Ram, along with Lakshamana, send to you their well-wishes. Sugriva, in his friendly attitude towards Ram, enquires after your wellbeing too.
Here 'Rajaputrau' seems to have been used very matter of factly way, an adjective for expressing their princely status rather than anything else.
2. The translation of the second Sloka, from Srimad bhAgavatam seems accurate. But here too, the adjective Rajaputro is used in reference as a prince for Maharaj Parikshit.
3. Same in the reference to Bhagwan Gautama Buddha, or King Harshavardhana. They are referred as rajaputra in the same context too.
What maybe useful is to find some references where 'rajaputra' word is used in referring to a clan of kshatriyas, or to refer to a kshatriya who is not necessarily a prince - but maybe warrior or administrator etc.
<b>ishwaji, welcome back!</b> You were missed at the forum.
post 148: Husky, this is very interesting and useful. Is it possible to provide some references (Tamil or other languages, referring to kings as rajaputra or equivalent)
02-10-2007, 02:59 PM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2007, 04:16 AM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->post 148: Husky, this is very interesting and useful. Is it possible to provide some references (Tamil or other languages, referring to kings as rajaputra or equivalent)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not from textual sources, but from B&W Tamil movies set in olden days. Period films, in other words.
But the only old film set in a historical Tamil Nadu that I have here, refers consistently to both the king (Arasu - sp?) and prince only in Tamil, I think. Need to check that. It's called Konjum Salangai, in case anyone can recall it off the top of their head. (Tamil dub of Maya Bazaar does not count anyway, since it's about the Mahabharatam.) I'll ask my mum if she can remember the names of the old Tamil period films that my dad hired.
<b>ADDED:</b>
Had half an hour to spare to forward through Konjum Salangai last night. The graceful Bharatanatyam danseuse referred to the king as Maharaja several times. So he was called King in both Tamil and Samskritam. Could not locate the moments where people referred to the crown prince; from memory this was in Tamil as stated in first paragraph.
Meanwhile, mother can't recall that father hired those black and white films just a few years ago. Sister recalls the ocassion, but like me does not know their titles. Have yet to talk to my father about this.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Feb 10 2007, 08:09 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Feb 10 2007, 08:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->.....
What maybe useful is to find some references where 'rajaputra' word is used in referring to a clan of kshatriyas, or to refer to a kshatriya who is not necessarily a prince - but maybe warrior or administrator etc.
......
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bodhi/Ishwa,
There is indeed such a passage in Anushashan Parva :
You are right that this chapter contains the word Raajaputra with the abstractum suffix âtaa as a synonym for Raajanya as a class. Which emphasizes the Karmadhaaraya use of Raajaputra giving the meaning of âroyal sonâ = king.
The whole chapter, which is a dialogue between Vyaasadeva and KiiTa and raising oneâs status based upon merits, mentions different classes, like Shvapaakas, Shuudras, Vaishyas, Kshatriyas, Magadhas and Suutas.
Chapter 120 proceeds on KShatradharma.
kiiTa uvaaca:
idaM tad atulaM sthaanam iipShitaM dashabhir guNaiH |
yad ahaM praapya kiiTatvam aagato raajaputrataam ||11||
The worm said:
'My present status is that high one which is coveted by all and which is attainable by the possession of the ten well-known attributes.
Indeed, I who was formerly a worm have thus attained to the status of a prince.
prasaadaat satyasaMdhasya bhavato 'mitatejasaH |
yad ahaM kiiTataaM praarya saMpraapto raajaputrataam ||16||
Through the grace of thyself that art firm in truth and endued with immeasurable energy, I who was before a worm have now become a person of the royal order.
Notes
In general, here Raajaputra-taa is an abstractum referring crystal clear to the class of Raajaputras = Raajanya VarNa! Ganguly once translates Raajaputra-taa as status of a prince and once as a person of royal order, as synonym of Raajanya and thus regarding the word Raajaputra correctly as a synonym of Raajan = king.
For the specialists, I have the feeling that the word KiiTa (with its synonym Krimi) and its status defined as KiiTa-tva may refer to the Krivi (Pancaala) versus KrNva/Kuru dichotomy (all three words are based upon the base kr), getting the first reflections in some headings of Atharvaveda Mantras in book I. It is there in the headings that sections of the KrNvas (Paippalaada AV spelling) = KaNvas (Shaunakiiya AV, Shaakalya RV spelling) start getting a deteriorating status.
Book 13 Chapter 119 at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs13119.htm has the same corresponding chapter of the Sanskrit text as the one at the Gretil site. But the translation by Ganguli at the sacred-texts site is based upon another recension,see at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13b083.htm, it gives chapter 118.
In general, the chapters of the translation may run behind the Sanskrit text, sometimes 1 chapter, sometimes a few chapters.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Feb 10 2007, 08:09 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Feb 10 2007, 08:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>ishwaji, welcome back!</b>Â You were missed at the forum.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you Bodhi ji. I do not have much time any more these days to give many postings in the forums, while most time is being absorbed for instance by taking care of my aged parents.
But now and then I will give replies, as very interesting postings are being given.
Another form of Raajaputra-taa for the Royal class is Raajaputra-tva in the same chapter in verse 21:
itas tvaM raajaputratvaad braahmaNyaM samavaapsyasi
gobraahmaNakrte praaNaan hutvaatmiiyaan raNaajire ||21||
In consequence of thy having saluted and worshipped me thou shalt rise higher, for, from the Kshatriya order thou shalt rise to the status of a Brahmana, if only thou castest off thy life-breaths on the field of battle for the sake of kine or Brahmanas.
A subtle note for the specialists here is that Raajaputra-tva is synonymous to the ancient word Raajan-ya while the synonym of BraahmaNa is rendered here as BraahmaN-ya. The two -an ending words Raajan and Brahman get the Vrddhi form with the -ya Pratyaya. The same chapter also uses the word BraahmaNa-tva.
The Karmadhaaraya dimension [(prominent) son of the royal (class)] as base can be seen in for instance:
b13.c119.v022
raajaputrasukhaM praapya rtuuMsh caivaaptadakShiNaan |
atha modiShyase svarge brahmabhuuto 'vyayaH sukhii ||
O prince, enjoying much felicity and performing many sacrifices with copious presents, thou shalt attain to heaven and transformed into eternal Brahma, thou wilt have perfect beatitude.
b07.c044.v027
cuutaaraamo yathaa bhagnaH pancavarShaphalopagaH |
raajaputrashataM tadvat saubhadreNaapatad dhatam ||vii.44.27||
Those hundred princes were slain and felled by Subhadra's son like a tope of five-year old mango-trees just on the point of bearing fruit (laid low by a tempest).
I believe that Raajaputra gives the Praakrta form raavata, also known in the later form Rawat.
Thus, it is crystal clear, thanks to Digvijay for the textplaces, that Rajput as name for the royal class is just a continuation of the ancient KShatriya/Raajaputra class. Some families disappeared (possibly with loss of status and profession), some did reappear through minor or subbranches here and there, but also new ones appeared on the scene.
<!--QuoteBegin-ishwa+Feb 10 2007, 10:46 PM-->QUOTE(ishwa @ Feb 10 2007, 10:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus, it is crystal clear, thanks to Digvijay for the textplaces, that Rajput as name for the royal class is just a continuation of the ancient KShatriya/Raajaputra class. Some families disappeared (possibly with loss of status and profession), some did reappear through minor or subbranches here and there, but also new ones appeared on the scene.
[right][snapback]64258[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We have to see whether Rajaputarta or Rajaputartava can be substituted for a class of people like Rajputs ,may be Bodhi and Bharatvarsha can enlighten us.
However Persian texts are quite crystal about it.
When we read History of rise of Muhammedan power in India ,Fariesta has written an Introductory Chapter on Hindus and his narrations about Hindu religion and mythology as heard from contemporary people is fairly a true account and we can not doubt his other narrations about Indian people without any reason.
He has specially taken up the issue of origin of Rajputs and mentions that rajputs are not Kshatriyas as per what he heard from Indian peole and ascribe them a later identity ...
Quote Fariesta..
Some of the Hindoos assert, that the tribes of Brahmin and Kshetry existed from time immeÂmorial, but that the Rajpoots are a modern tribe, only known since the beginning of the Kulyoog. The same is related of many other different tribes. The Rajpoots attained power since the death of Raja Vikramajeet, from whom is derived the present Hindoo era, being something more than 1600 years. The origin of the Rajpoots is thus related. The rajas, not satisfied with their married wives, had frequently children by their female slaves, who, although not legitimate successors to the throne, were styled Rajpoots, or the children of the rajas, and the children of Raja Sooruj, whose history we shall now relate, were the first to whom the name of rajpoot was given. The population of India, like that of other parts of the globe, arose from the descendants of Noah. After the flood, Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet,..........
Almost same story is told in another version titled...
History of India Kamgar Husyani Garyat Han Hawajah.
So I feel like other modern historians that Rajput is a later group and identity seprate from the ancient Kshatriyas.
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-ishwa+Feb 10 2007, 10:46 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ishwa @ Feb 10 2007, 10:46 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus, it is crystal clear, thanks to Digvijay for the textplaces, that Rajput as name for the royal class is just a continuation of the ancient KShatriya/Raajaputra class. Some families disappeared (possibly with loss of status and profession), some did reappear through minor or subbranches here and there, but also new ones appeared on the scene.
[right][snapback]64258[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We have to see whether Rajaputarta or Rajaputartava can be substituted for a class of people like Rajputs ,may be Bodhi and Bharatvarsha can enlighten us.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Narendra,
It is quite clear in Anushashan Parva. Please read the referenced chapter where Rajputra is used for kshatriya interchangably.
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
However Persian texts are quite crystal about it.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why would you consider our own Mahabharata lower as a source compared to what a mullah court historian writes, who most likely had no idea about Sanskrit or what is mahabharata and on top of it makes such idiotic claims:
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Quote Fariesta..
......The population of India, like that of other parts of the globe, arose from the descendants of Noah.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NANDIBUM+Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM-->QUOTE(NANDIBUM @ Feb 11 2007, 12:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->So I feel like other modern historians that Rajput is a later group and identity seprate from the ancient Kshatriyas.
[right][snapback]64265[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All these modern historians are wrong. If they had just done a little bit more research they would have seen there are umpteen number of inscriptions and references to rajputra kings in our history.
I think Rajput as an endogamous jati came later than the epic period, Rajaputra literally means the Son of a Raja in Sanskrit (or Telugu for that matter), there are a few legends about the origins of Rajputs including the Agnikunda legend which is taken as evidence of their foreign origin by colonialists but going by the available records some of today's Rajput clans like the Rathores and Solankis were originally from the Deccan and Karnataka.
The best analogy I can give is the Gurkhas, the Gurkhas as a jati claim descent from Bappa Rawal of Mewar, so here we have an example of the slow development of an endogamous group, I think the same holds true for Rajputs as well but I don't know how long ago they became a separate group.
For that to be confirmed, we have to search for the first mention of the word Rajput and see if it's used in the sense of referring to a group like the Jats are mentioned in Chachnama.
In AP, there is some speculation that Kammas, Velamas and Kapus etc had a common origin but became separate groups later on, so formation of new groups has been going on through out history.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Feb 11 2007, 01:14 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Feb 11 2007, 01:14 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->......
For that to be confirmed, we have to search for the first mention of the word Rajput and see if it's used in the sense of referring to a group like the Jats are mentioned in Chachnama.
.....
[right][snapback]64267[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bharat,
This point is mentioned above in Anushashan Parva. Rajaputra and kshatriya is used interchangably when the kita is reborn as a kshatriya and goes to meet Risha Vyasa in his kshatriya form.
02-11-2007, 03:31 AM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2007, 03:33 AM by Hauma Hamiddha.)
-It is clear that terms like brahma-bandhu and rAjaputra on occassions imply a general person belonging to the 1st or 2nd varNa-s respectively. Thus a rAjaputra may merely be a kShatriya or a prince or king. In the sense of loosely representing the second varNa the term rAjaputra is indeed used synonymously with rAjanya or kShatriya. It could though specifically denote a prince.
-The point whether rAjpUts are related to the ancient kShatriyas of the itihAsas cannot be easily settled. But it is clear that colonial historians have attempted to delegitmize the rAjpUts by calling them descendents of hUnas and so on. In the period of tripartite struggle (that is between North, south and middle India) for supremacy over the subcontinent the rAjput dynasties of the classical medieaval history rise to prominence. Their origins are highly varied. By no account are all rAjpUts agni-bhU. In early medieaval sanskrit literature we come across many rAjpUt clans linked to older kShatriyas. E.g.:
guhadattas (called guhilots in common language): state ikShvAku descent
kalachuris: state haihaya descent
kaushiks: state descent from gathin the father of vishvAmitra.
-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.
-The above always called themselves kShatriyas from the first time they appear in history. They are definitely not hUnas for some of them originated in south India away from hUna maNDala. There was a small remnant hUna kingdom known as hUNa maNDala which was later absorbed as a rAjpUt family. Even today you find that surname.
-I have seen inscriptions of kShatriyas of Andhra of the haihaya clan where they use the term rAjaputra. So it might have at one point been more widely used. We also see this term in context of a south Indian dynasty the ga~Ngas.
-The kammas, velamas and some groups in maharashtra (now called maratha or even kohli) do seem to be monophyletic. There is genetic evidence supporting that.
<b>Their origins are highly varied. By no account are all rAjpUts agni-bhU.</b>
-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 mAraTh<b>a clans like Shinde and Bhosle have been called Apa-bhU.</b>
. <b>There was a small remnant hUna kingdom known as hUNa maNDala which was later absorbed as a rAjpUt family.</b> Even today you find that surname.
-I have seen inscriptions of kShatriyas of Andhra of the haihaya clan where they use the term rAjaputra.
<b>We also see this term in context of a south Indian dynasty the ga~Ngas.</b>
-The kammas, velamas and some groups in maharashtra (now called maratha or even kohli) do seem to be monophyletic. There is genetic evidence supporting that.
[right][snapback]64274[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hauma
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.
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.
However I would like to point out since Hunas have negative refernces, no group wants to assosiate with them.The famous hapthalite king was named Narendera or Naryana and name like Mihir was a common name in Rajputana and their adoption/support of hinduism is a well known fact.
We can not limit Indic influence to present Indian territory if we think in historical terms, in fact hauma explained about hindu Mangla kings in the area of hunas so late as seventh AD actively supported by Indian traders and later overthrown by Chinese rulers.
Again King Suraj is not a mythical figures and said to be the father of King Siladitya ruling Gujarat.
