Dear Wikipedia, Brian has blocked me from editing and Tom has been reverting my edits. Tom's knowledge of rajput history is very shallow and when I corrected him he wants to create a new page with my edits instead of the rajput main page itself. I have given a list of more then 2 dozen books which are my sources and Tom has not given any sources. It seems that he is relying on the internet for his data or atbest(this is my guess because he has not provide any bibliography) some disputed historians like Ms Romila Thapar from India.

This is unjust censoring of my argument. I have attached discussion between myself and Tom R.

-Shivraj

From Tom Radulovich:

POV pushing and speculation

Shivraj's claims on this page cannot be proven, and don't belong here. The burden of proof in a Wikipedia article is on the one who claims something to be a fact, not on everyone else. If I write "it is proven that the moon is made of green cheese", I should be able to provide documentation that the moon is indeed made of green cheese; it is not up to everyone else to prove to me that it is not. To say that "if there were no Rajputs in India then India would be just like Iraq/Iran/Turkey/Pakistan in terms of religion" is not a "fact", it is just speculation. There are many parts of india--most of India, in fact--where there are few or no Rajputs, yet the these regions do not have a Muslim majority today; if Rajputs are the only thing keeping a country from becoming Muslim, then why is South India, with no significant Rajput presence, still Hindu? What about Spain, or Serbia, or Bulgaria, that were subject to centuries of Muslim rule, who, in the absence of Rajputs, didn't become Muslim? And what about Sind, which was ruled by Rajputs before the Muslim conquest--why did it become Muslim, despite the presence of Rajputs? If one wanted to prove one's theory that the presence of Rajputs is the only thing that prevented mass conversion to Islam, it would be necessary to prove that 1) No region with Rajputs ever became majority muslim; and that 2) all regions without Rajputs became majority muslim. The historical record doesn't support either claim; furthermore it is extremely insulting to the vast majority of Hindus who happen not to be Rajputs to claim that, but for the Rajputs, they would have given up their religion. Lots of non-Rajputs showed enormous bravery in keeping Hinduism alive during periods of Muslim rule, and it is also well documented that many Rajput leaders showed less bravery in collaborating with their Muslim rulers.

Second, to assert that "A point to note here is that lot of Muslims and some hindu historians like Romila Thapar think that Islam/Muslims did not do conversion of Hindus by sword. The argument they give is that there are so many hindus still today in India. This is completely wrong because most muslim rulers in India tried to convert as many as they could but it was the strength of rajput sword that kept hinduism alive in India." is patently absurd. What makes Shivraj the definitive authority on Indian history, able to dismiss scholars such as Romila Thapar as "completely wrong"? It is totally fair to say that scholarly opinions differ, or to avoid speculation altogether, but to state that eminent historians "are completely wrong" without offering some compelling evidence is sloppy scholarship that has no place on Wikipedia. Tom Radulovich 07:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

From Shivraj:

Tom,

Fundamentally you do not understand Hinduism and Rajputs. Hinduism is a religion which does not have any way of making somebody a hindu. Once you are converted to someother religion that is it. That said in last few decades some organizations in India have invented ways to make people Hindu primarily as a backlash against christian missionaries who were converting tribals.

Reason why Spain/Bulgaria/Hungary/Serbia are not like Iraq/Iran etc is very simple. These regions were conquered by christians after muslims and since christianity preaches missionary zeal this led to reconversion of muslims back to christianity. If u look at DNA data muslim serbs and other serbs are the same stock, similar thing in Hungary etc. Find out the census towards the end of muslim rule in these countries. Iraq/Iran/Turkey etc remained under muslim rule for more then thousand years and the result is that >90% of these countries are muslim. Now why did this not happen in India? It was because of rajputs. Muslims realised very early that rajput men, women and children cannot be subdued at any cost and the wars were constant between rajputs and muslims since the birth of Islam till British came in India i.e almost a 1000 years. This was the resistance which kept hinduism alive and not the benevolence of muslim rulers in India. Though muslims would want you to believe that no conversion ever happened in India on the edge of a sword. If muslims had no resistance in India, like they had none in Iraq/Iran etc India would be like these countries. I do not understand why this is speculation or POV (whatever that means).

Regarding South India the first real muslim empire building that happened in deep south was under Aurangzeb and he had his hands full with both Shivaji and Rathores in the Indian heartland. Also what you do not realise that his incursions into south India were led by Hadas of Bundi and Kotah who are still regarded as the bravest rajputs in rajasthan. Yeah Aurangzeb was the emperor but he could not order these Hada Chauhans to convert south indians into Islam and thus south remained largely hindu, though there are pockets in Karnataka (because of backstabber Haider Ali and Tipu) and elsewhere where there are large number of Muslims. (When Jodhabai died Akbar's generals said to him that every man in his empire should shave there moustache in honor of the departed soul and Akbar agreed and he passed an order to this effect. Man Singh and Akbar had just managed to befriend Hadas and some Hadas were in Delhi during this time. The order reached Hadas that they have to cut there moustaches they laughed at the messenger and asked him to go back. Then Akbar's muslim generals sent barbers with muslim army to there palace. Hadas decided that they are going to fight and to hell with Akbar and Jodhabai. Realise Hadas are less then hundred in number, sitting in Delhi which is teeming with Muslims soldiers and they are defying Akbar's direct orders. Word reached Akbar that Hadas are about to start bloodshed in Delhi and Akbar was shellshocked. He reached there palace and bowed to them and asked for forgiveness. Akbar understood that if Surjan Hada was alienated and if Surjan combined with Maharana Pratap that would be the end of Akbar's rule).

Afghanistan/ Sindh was ruled by Hindus/rajputs since time immeorial but after Dahir's death Sindh was largely under unbroken muslim rule and no major wars were fought in Sindh between rajputs and muslims there. After Dahir's fall his son moved himself as commander under the Mori prince of chittore and hence Dahir's progeny were uprooted from Sindh and settled in Rajasthan. As a consequence muslims did not encounter resistance in Sindh after Dahir's fall and hence the result of Sindh being largely muslim.

No Indian is insulted because rajputs helped preserve hinduism in India. Perhaps Romila thapar and her ilk might be. Yes there are a handful of non-rajputs who fought well but that was an exception rather then the rule. Fighting was only meant to be done by Kshatriyas and nobody else.

Romila thapar, has written that Prithviraj Chauhan begged Ghori after he lost. She has also written that Ghazni broke Shivalinga at Somnath not because he was against Hindus but some other bullshit.

You as a non-hindu and a non-rajput cannot comprehend how insulting these statements are. When one of us hears such untrue propaganda it makes our blood boil. These things along with a whole bunch of other lies is being taught to young Indians today in our shcools and these history books have been edited by Ms Thapar. Why does Romila behave like this? So that she can present papers in western conferences and travel abroad. Make westerners feel good yeah there was an Aryan invasion and yes Indians and everything coming out of India is inferior to the west. Porus lost, pythagoras discovered the theorem, Pi (circle area constant) invented in greece etc. If u have scientific background read Donald Knuth's(Stanford Prof) algorithm books where he has a done a better then average job in telling the world these things were known in India as common knowledge before Greeks even knew what Maths was.

Sloppy scholarship is what I saw on wikipedia a few weeks back when I first visited this site. A rajput site bashing rajputs!! Reading history from books written by biased historians does not make you a scholar. It also does not give you free ticket to spread the false propaganda to rest of the world. I will not allow this to happen and I have been editing the junk on wikipedia that existed before I looked at this site.

If you truely want to learn more and are not arguing for the sake of arguing as others on this discussion are here is a brief list of books that are in my library.

Maharana Kumbha : sovereign, soldier, scholar

Maharana Pratap

Maharaja Mansingh : the mystic monarch of Marwar

Maravara ka itihasa

The glory of Ranthambhor

Rathaura rajavamsa ke riti-rivaja : 1600-1850 I.

Maharana Hammir of Mewar : Chitor's lost freedom restored

Maharana Pratapa : eka aise vira yoddha ki jivana-gatha jisane svatantrata ke lie apani akhiri samsa taka visala Mugala samrajya se janga ki

Maharana Pratapa : aitihasika adhyayana

The genealogical survey : Royal house of Marwar and other states

Unveiling Ajitsingh's Sanskrit biography : issues in Marwar history and Sanskrit poetics

Marwar-Jodhpur

The house of Marwar

Relations between Marwar and the Marathas, A.D. 1724-1843 A.D.

Maravara ke thikanom ki puralekhiya sampada

Durgadas Rathor : [national biography]

War strategy of Maharana Pratap, its evolution and implementation

Maharana Pratapa

Poems of Mewar

The johur of Padmini : the saga of Chitor's deathless heroine

Maharana Pratap : a biography

Maharana Pratap, the hero of Haldighati

Maharana Kumbha and his times : a glorious Hindu king

Maharana Pratap & his times

The luminous life of Maharana Pratap

Maharana Pratapa

Hindupati Maharana Sanga : sacitra

Rashtra-gaurava suravira Maharana Pratapa

Sirohi rajya ka itihasa

Essays on Bardic literature : Professor V.S. Bhatnagar felicitation volume

Bhati vamsa ka gauravamaya itihasa

Annals of Jaisalmer : a pre-mediaeval history

Rajput tales : adapted and abridged from Tod's Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan

Svatantrya vira Rava Candrasena : Jodhapura ka sasaka 1562-1581 I.

Maheca Rathaurom ka mula itihasa : Ravala Mallinatha ke vamsaja - Maheca, Baramera, Pokarana, Kotariya aura Khavariya Rathaurom ka sodhapurna itihasa

Amara Simha Rathaura

Folk tales of Rajasthan

Panna dhaya : prabandha kavya

Mevara jagiradaram ri vigata : Maharana Amarasimha Dvi. evam Maharana Bhimasimha

Maratha confederacy : a study in its origin and development

Vira siromani Rava Amarasimha Rathaura : Nagaura ka sasaka, 1638-1644 I.

Vira Durgadasa Rathaurha

Svatamtrata-premi Durgadasa Rathaura

Prithiraja Rathaura

Bharata ka Liyonidasa, Sonigira Virama de Cauhana, Jalaura = : Lionidas of India Sonigira Viram de Chauhan,Jalore : a history of greatest patriotic saga of Chauhan clan

Folklore of Rajasthan

Rise of the Maratha power

Studies on Maratha & Rajput history

Pranapala Durgadasa Rathaura

Rathaura rajavamsa ke riti-rivaja : 1600-1850 I.

Gogunda ki khyata

Rathaudam ri khyata

Early Chauhan dynasties : a study of Chauhan political history, Chauhan political institution, and life in the Chauhan dominions, from 800 to 1316 A.D.

Survey of Kheechi Chauhan history, with biographical notes

Folklore of Rajasthan

Maharana Pratap & his times

Rashtravira Durgadasa Rathaura

The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan (2 vols.)

Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan (2 vols.)

-Shivraj

From Tom:

"POV" means point-of-view, and understanding the "Neutral Point of View" is official policy at Wikipedia. All wikipedia editors should be aware of the three policies regarding content: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia: No original research and Wikipedia: Verifiability.

I think part of the confusion here is the distinction between the article and the article's talk page. To say "Romila Thapar is a completely wrong" on the talk page is rude and intellectually dodgy, but acceptable; to say so in the article is another thing, since it violates all three policies. It is not appropriate to rebut theories about why Hindus converted to Islam and advance your personal theory in the article, because the article doesn't advance ANY theory on why Hindus converted to Islam, and because 1) the NPOV policy would require that competing theories be presented dispassionately; and 2) it is your opinion (no original research); and 3) it cannot be proved or disproved (verifiability).

The Rajputs weren't able to prevent the conquest of most of India by either the Sultans of Delhi nor the Mughals, nor were they even able to prevent Muslim domination of most of Rajasthan at the height of Muslim power. The argument that Rajput military prowess was the only thing that prevented India from becoming Muslim is a pretty dodgy assertion, as the record shows that the Kshatriyas weren't always successful against Muslim armies (which were often led by Rajputs, as you point out). Nor were the Rajputs present everywhere in India. so some resistance (not armed resistance, but cultural resistance) on the part of non-Rajput indians was essential to preserving India's Hindu character. I agree that Rajputs played a very important role, but to say they were the ONLY reason that India isn't now Muslim is a hightly questionable assertion.

Also, your argument that "Regarding South India the first real muslim empire building that happened in deep south was under Aurangzeb" is factually incorrect; the Muslim conquest of India south of the Narmada began with Ala ud din Khilji in the early 14th century, a little over 100 years after the defeat of Prithviraj III. Rule by the Delhi Sultanate expanded over the next half decade, and was followed continuously by the Bahmani Sultanate and later by the Deccan sultanates in the region between the Narmada and the Tungabhadra, and extended further south after 1565. When Aurangzeb campaigned in southern India in the late 17th century, it was mostly Muslim-ruled kingdoms that he conquered. Tom Radulovich 22:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

From Shivraj:

There are bugs in your logic regarding Romila. How is it OK to spread one sided history of rajputs just because historians like Romila have written it? What is rajput history? Is it just what some westerners wrote about rajputs and then some Indian historians who towed the British line? Or is it what 99% of rajputs beleive and has been passed down to them from generation to generation? If one visits a rajput village and talk to the elders on any topic that I have written you would get much more data then I have been able to collect so far from books I mentioned. This is the history which is true and not the versions of Romila and a few scholars from Rajasthan are penning this correct history into books. Some of the books have been mentioned earlier.

It is intellectual stagnation to not point the flaws in history presented by Ms Thapar and other editors. How can we trust there research when most of there presentation is false.

Prithviraj could not beg a muslim for his life. Any historian who claims that has a bias against rajputs and it is unacceptable for us to beleive an iota coming from there pen.

It is absolutely correct on my part to point out Ms Thapar is completely wrong. (BTW this discussion is akin to the aryan invasion theory which has been completely debunked. Nobody in rajput country side beleieved Aryan invasion theory ever. It is just modern english educated Indians who were made to learn this stupid theory and sadly is still the case in our schools today thanks to Ms Thapar).

Conversion of Rajputs only happened due to a flaw in there own character where they wanted to retain there kingdom or remain an important general or the relatives of this king or general who converted. Rajput would not be converted by sword or how the ordinary hindus were converted as explained below.

Conversions of ordinary hindus in India happened:

a) After a war was lost.

b) When a principality was ruled by a muslim ruler for an extended period of time thru systematic pressure on hindu population by threats of torture/inhumane treatment/excessive taxation/women abduction/rape etc. e.g. old delhi / mysore/ hyderabad/ rampur/ golconda/ saharanpur/ kashmir/ bengal/avadh (lucknow) etc. have a very high density of muslim population. Wherever there were hindu kings ruling there own kingdom these mass conversion only happened if a war was lost on there soil. I fail to understand why it is difficult to judge the density of muslim population in muslim ruled areas as an example of conversion by the sword.

Some Islamists say that Hindus converted to Islam because of virtues in Islam. If that was the case we should still see ordinary Hindus converting to Islam today. But that is not the case.

Again you are wrong in stating that Rajputs could not stop muslim invasions. This is myth that has been created that somehow muslims were invincible and ruled India for 800 years.

How Alluddin won has been mentioned in the "Battles" section. Within 50 years of Chittore's fall Hammir regained it by capturing Tughlaq and for next 250 years or so Muslims had no real success against ranas of Mewar. Yes there were pockets where Muslims ruled unopposed in India and these regions have highest density of muslims. During Babur's time Rathores had a completely independent kingdom which almost touched borders with Delhi. During Akbar's time pretty much entire rajasthan was ruled by rajputs. Akbar taxed the ones who surrendered but his dictat did not run in rajput strongholds. During his time and later also there regions ruled by muslim generals of his and these parts have a very high density of muslims.

This is another example of how the world has been fed an incorrect assesment of history that muslims ruled India for 800 years. This again shows how less people understand rajputs, including all the non hindu/non rajput editors of wikipedia. A rajput would only conquer his paternal territories. Since Prithviraj's direct lines ceased to exist there was nobody who wanted to regain Delhi. It was not on any rajput's radar screen. World has crowned muslims as Indian rulers just because they were in delhi. Fact is Delhi was just like Mewar another Indian state in middle ages and happened to be ruled by Islam.

You talk about cultural resistance. Are you suggesting zoroastrainism is culturally weaker then Hinduism? How did Islamists convert entire Iran into a muslim state? This was done on the edge of the sword because they did not encounter a sustained resistance in these countries as they did in India.

All Islamic rulers in India had experienced the might of Rajput sword and this was the ONLY reason why India remained largely a hindu country. We can keep arguing about it but there is no other reason. I agree that you have not read it in a book but it is the truth.

Regarding deep south exccursion I meant Mughal excursions. Though some were launched under Man Singh of Amber during Akbar's time but they were not sustained operations as happened during Aurang's time.

-Shivraj

__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com