Jump to content

Mutiny Of 1857: The Search For Truth


amar_jkp

Recommended Posts

let me repeat this tale about the lie that only mewar and hada chauhans fought:

23. Rajput chiefs present at the Siege of Chittorgarh Fort :

• Rao Jaimal Singh Rathod
• Pratap Singh Jugawat
• Rawal Sahidas Chundawat
• Rawat Dudaji Sangawat
• Rana Ram Singh Tomar of Gwalior
• The Chief of Baidla
• Rawat Khanji Chauhan of Kotharia
• The Panwar Chief of Bijolian
• Jhala Sardar of Bari Sadri
• The Sonigara Rao of Jhalore
• Ishwardas Rathod
• Karam Singh Kachawah
• Duda Sadani Kachawah
• Kala Singh Rathod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the same Jai Singh that helped Shivaji escape? And was poisoned by Aurangzeb for it?

so apparently this rajput wasn't loyal to anyone?

do you think your king ranjit cared? or the maharaja patiala cared when he was raping sikh women in the dozens? wake up and smell the coffee buddy, illegitimate progeny is never loved by anyone, hence their abysmal life and status as bastards and whores.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh did care. His wives were extremely well-looked after.

Show us some proof about Maharaja Patiala raping Sikh women in the dozens.

And we can safely say, that the Maharajahs never gave any sister or daughter, of any wife to an enemy invader.

So whether the Sikh maharajas had big or small kingdoms, strong or feeble rule, we can immediately place them on a higher pedestal of humanity and courage, than the rajputs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahahahah courage for atacking a 90 year old right? pulling someone by their mustahces? not coming out the fort when attacked by mian dido? maharaja patiala used to stand on his roof and pick up any girl he wanted and ranjits wives were looked after properly? ahahahah all kings have great accomodations for their wives ad mistresses! ahahaha you FOOL! and as far as jai singh goes, ask guruji why he had no problem with jai singh but you have the audacity to? baysharam losers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how about nawab kapur singh? why did he take a muslim title then revolt again? its ok for him to secure regions under his rule but no for no one else right... stupid idiots.

Take a muslim title?

Damn you really clutching at straws now to prove this rajput supremacy. I mean you must be really desperate to think that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Rajputs were not a caste during its initial stages i.e. 10th and 11th centuries. They were the confederation of Various raja-putra (please note that its "Rajaputra and not Yuvraj or Rajkumar") clans such as Chauhans, Tomars, Kachhwahas, Chandelas and Rathods etc.

2. Rajputs were mostly feudal lords holding the status of the revenue collectors for the Gurjar overlords. (As written in the Indian Civil services solved papers).

3. Rajputs asserted independence after the fall of last Pratihar King Rajyapal, who was defeated by Ghazni. It raise another doubt that how the Pratihar kingdom, which successfully checked the advance of Arabic invaders for more than 300 years, was defeated by Ghazni (who was nowhere near the strength of Arabic Invaders).

4. Rajputs were basically the illegitimate children of the Gurjar-Pratihars, who claim descent from Sooraj (most probably Mihir Bhoj), and hence called themselves soorajvamshi (they could obviously not originate from SUN, though later they created another story of them being fire born or agnivamshi, which made their claim more funny and illogical). (As written by Ferishta

5. Most of the Rajputs were the pedigree of Gurjars, which is clear with the adoption of their clan names by earliest Rajputs such as Chauhans, Tomars and Parmars etc.

6. Rajput was not used in the Indian writings until the times of Babar (early 16th centuries). Even the famous books such as rajtarangini, kumarpal charita, prithviraj Raso etc. never used the word rajput as a caste or community. Rajput was used as a military position in the administration records of Gurjar-Pratihars.

7. Rajputs were dissatisfied and annoyed with the Gurjars due to their negligence and not offering them any kingdom, even after their being the children of those Gurjar overlords.

8. It gives us a clue that the Rajputs might have helped Ghazni to overthrow the Gurjars. The sudden rise of various small Rajput Kingdoms immediately after the fall of Gurjar-Pratihars states that they were installed to the thrones (raising their status from revenue collecting feudatories to Rajas) by Ghazni. Thet tributary Vassal status of these states again proved this point.

They continued this practice at the time of Moghals and Britishers as well. They were installed to the thrones of various Riyasata and Taluks, given higher psots in army, a regiment of their own etc. Eventually, they became socially very powerful and rich. They changed the historical records (with the help of bribed Brahmin scholars and Bhats) to prove them as the real kings during medieval age. But they could not change the Turkish, Iranian, Arabic and Chinese records. And today most of the historians have realized what the truth is and most of the Indian records (altered by Rajputs) is not considered authentic by any international historian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

many rajputs fought ghazni and some allied themselves with the ghaznavids because of tribal warfare. rajputs were never really united. even rana sanga was betrayed by shiladitya or vikramaditya i forget. this gujjar nonsense is so trivial... many tribes overlap jats gujjars and rajputs.. thats tribe specific info. not applicable to all rajputs.

Edited by JungChamkaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think they should not have fought wars with the marathas and allied themselves with them against abdali.

Good God! They had the opportunity to ally with the tenth Guru in the 1696-1708 and went running to forge slave relationships with the moghals against the Gurus.

Seems the rajputs learnt nothing about tactical warfare in that 60 odd years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. Rajputs were basically the illegitimate children of the Gurjar-Pratihars, who claim descent from Sooraj (most probably Mihir Bhoj), and hence called themselves soorajvamshi (they could obviously not originate from SUN, though later they created another story of them being fire born or agnivamshi, which made their claim more funny and illogical). (As written by Ferishta

That would explain their attitude towards "illegitimate" children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of course they should have allied with the gurus. many rajputs did. im not sure why the jaipur jodhpur ones didnt, probably because of casteism and tribal mentality. nevertheless, they were baagi time and time again. their sacrifices against invaders cant be ignored or denigrated just because you want to create a black and white history of good and bad as if there is any kom that is 100% pure good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good God! They had the opportunity to ally with the tenth Guru in the 1696-1708 and went running to forge slave relationships with the moghals against the Gurus.

Seems the rajputs learnt nothing about tactical warfare in that 60 odd years.

It was Hindu Rajputs kings who asked mughals to go after Sikhs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of course they should have allied with the gurus. many rajputs did. im not sure why the jaipur jodhpur ones didnt, probably because of casteism and tribal mentality. nevertheless, they were baagi time and time again. their sacrifices against invaders cant be ignored or denigrated just because you want to create a black and white history of good and bad as if there is any kom that is 100% pure good.

What a hypocrate you are , you thousand excuses to defend Rajputs like they were not united , many tribes , they were wrong at some time but in past they did some good work blah blah and when it comes to Sikhs they all are guilty .

If you hate Sikhs so much why have you Nihungs photo as you avatar and why naming your self jung chamkour ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...