Warriors of Gujarat

[civfanatic]

What comes to my mind always is that Somnath temple was rebuilt seven times after being destroyed.Despite the fact that Gujarat was right on the border of India on the Western frontier open to all marauders coming in from that direction !

Gujjus, despite many of them being strict vegetarians, have shown themselves to be of strong resolve.

From what I can see, none of the dynasties and warrior lineages mentioned in this thread are native to Gujarat.

It was not "Gujjus" who showed a strong resolve, but various Rajput and Deccani rulers, who happened to rule parts of the territory we now call "Gujarat".

 

[Libertarian]

From what I can see, none of the dynasties and warrior lineages mentioned in this thread are native to Gujarat.

It was not "Gujjus" who showed a strong resolve, but various Rajput and Deccani rulers, who happened to rule parts of the territory we now call "Gujarat".

I am Gujarati and my ancestors were Rajput landowners. I also know Solanki Gujaratis; they don't look South Indian or like people from Andhra Pradesh and they don't consider themselves as anything other than Gujaratis. We aren't even Hindus.

 

[civfanatic]

I am Gujarati and my ancestors were Rajput landowners. I also know Solanki Gujaratis; they don't look South Indian or like people from Andhra Pradesh and they don't consider themselves as anything other than Gujaratis. We aren't even Hindus.

Bahadur Shah Zafar also did not look anything like an Uzbek, and could speak Hindu-Urdu but not Turkish, but it doesn't change the fact that his ancestors came from Central Asia.

Several Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas were not Hindus either. The Rashtrakutas were actually famous for their patronage of Jainism.

 

[civfanatic]

The Lata branch of the early Chalukya and Rashtrakuta rulers of Gujarat signed their inscriptions in Kannada. Why would they do so unless they had their origins in Karnataka? It is widely accepted that the Chalukyas (subsequently known as Solankis) and Rashtrakutas were of Kannadiga descent. Of course, over time they were assimilated into the local Gujarati society and lost touch with their Karnataka roots. This process has happened numerous times, in different times and settings.

 

[Libertarian]

@civfanatic
The original Rajput clans and even Southern Indian Brahmins have origins in North West India. Even the Chalukas, according to wiki, "originally hailed from Ayodhya" in Uttar Pradesh, and migrated to South India.

And of course the great spoiler of them all - Mr Jinnah!

Jinnah was born in present day Pakistan, but he was of Gujarati Lohana background. His paternal Grandfather converted to Islam from Hinduism:

"Jinnah was the grandson of Premjibhai thakkar (Gondal), who, to support his family, entered into trading of fish in the coastal town of Veraval. His business, however, clashed with the strong moral ethics of the Lohanas. As a result, he was ostracised from the community. He made enough money in this trade and attempted to rejoin the community. He also discontinued the fish business. However, the Lohana leaders, in their wisdom, did not accept his request"

 

[civfanatic]

@civfanatic
The original Rajput clans and even Southern Indian Brahmins have origins in North West India. Even the Chalukas, according to wiki, "originally hailed from Ayodhya" in Uttar Pradesh, and migrated to South India.

This is the first sentence from the Wiki article "Chalukya dynasty" under the section "Origins":

While opinions vary regarding the early origins of the Chalukyas, the consensus is that the founders of the empire at Badami were native to the modern Karnataka region.

There are ten references to support the statement.

 

[LalTopi]

I am Gujarati and my ancestors were Rajput landowners. I also know Solanki Gujaratis; they don't look South Indian or like people from Andhra Pradesh and they don't consider themselves as anything other than Gujaratis. We aren't even Hindus.

Why did Rajput landowners convert I wonder? what was the driving factor?
My clan is from Surat region, have Rajput names and can trace ancestral migation from rajput clans from Rajasthan/north Gujarat. yet we are not high caste.

 

[Simple_Guy]

From what I can see, none of the dynasties and warrior lineages mentioned in this thread are native to Gujarat.

It was not "Gujjus" who showed a strong resolve, but various Rajput and Deccani rulers, who happened to rule parts of the territory we now call "Gujarat".

Conphoos ho gaya hay.....LOL LOL

Gujarat and Rajasthan share common culture language. They were not always known by these names in the Rajput period right? Or during ancient India? There is an overlap so Rajput dynasties are said to originate in the common united territory. Madhya Pradesh is also part of that vast territory and another home of Rajput dynasties.

This is the reason I said that dynasties were indigenous to India. By the way Vaghela Rajputs originate from Gujarat and have spread to the area called Baghelkhand in MP.

It is widely accepted that the Chalukyas (subsequently known as Solankis) and Rashtrakutas were of Kannadiga descent.

Bahut jaada conphoosun ho gaya.

Lata or south Gujarat was briefly part of Deccan Chalukya kingdom. But not rest of Gujarat.

The Solankis are from Anahilvada or North Gujarat, not Lata, and they have no "Deccani" connection. None of their inscription are in kannada

 

[civfanatic]

Gujarat and Rajasthan share common culture language. They were not always known by these names in the Rajput period right? Or during ancient India? There is an overlap so Rajput dynasties are said to originate in the common united territory. Madhya Pradesh is also part of that vast territory and another home of Rajput dynasties.

Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh also share a common culture and language, but that doesn't mean the Chalukyas or Rashtrakutas were Telugus. In the territories of the modern states Gujarat, Rajasthan, and MP, there were individual historical regions which had their own names, and whose definitions were generally agreed upon. Regions like Saurashtra, Lata, Malwa, Mewar, Marwar, etc. Different Rajput lineages had their origins in different parts of India (some, like the Rathods, actually descend from the Deccani Rashtrakutas), but the question is about having Gujarati origin.

This is the reason I said that dynasties were indigenous to India. By the way Vaghela Rajputs originate from Gujarat and have spread to the area called Baghelkhand in MP.

Wiki says that the Vaghelas were a branch of the Solankis, but I will take your word for it.

Lata or south Gujarat was briefly part of Deccan Chalukya kingdom. But not rest of Gujarat.

Yes, the rest of Gujarat was dominated by the Gujjars, who gave their name to the region.

The Solankis are from Anahilvada or North Gujarat, not Lata, and they have no "Deccani" connection. None of their inscription are in kannada

They certainly have a Deccani connection, because their name literally reads "Chalukya". Some say that they are of Gujjar origin, and intermarried with the Chalukyas in Lata, taking their name in the process. Doesn't really matter as far as my question is concerned, because the Gujjars are not indigenous to Gujarat either.

As for none of the Solanki inscriptions being in Kannada - none of the Mughals after Babur and Humayun spoke in Chagatai Turkish either.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh also share a common culture and language

But nothing like Gujarat and Rajasthan.

Regions like Saurashtra, Lata, Malwa, Mewar, Marwar, etc. Different Rajput lineages had their origins in different parts of India but the question is about having Gujarati origin.

By your logic then since there was no united "Rajasthan" back then, there can't be any Rajasthani Rajputs! LOL

Wiki says that the Vaghelas were a branch of the Solankis.

So? They originated in Gujarat right. By this logic then Baghela Rajputs in MP are actually Gujju warriors. They can't be called part of MP because in some remote period they came from Gujarat. LOL

As for none of the Solanki inscriptions being in Kannada - none of the Mughals after Babur and Humayun spoke in Chagatai Turkish either.

LOL. SO at least Babur Humayun spoke it? Why did NONE of the Solanki rulers speak write Kannada.

 

[Simple_Guy]

By the way @civfanatic what exactly is your khujli with Gujarat and Gujaratis? Just curious.

 

[Libertarian]

This is the first sentence from the Wiki article "Chalukya dynasty" under the section "Origins":

The Wikipedia article is about the Chalukya Dynasty that ruled parts of Southern and Central India, but not Gujarat. There are only two obscure references to Gujarat, and none claim that rulers of Gujarat had Southern origins. The first quote, from the 'Legends' section, states that only some scholars connect Solankis with Chalukyas:

Some scholar connect the Chalukyas with the Solankis of Gujarat. According to a myth mentioned in latter manuscripts of Prithviraj Raso, Solankis were born out of fire-pit (Agnikund) at Mount Abu. However it has been reported that the story of Agnikula is not mentioned at all in the original version of the Prithviraj Raso preserved in the Fort Library at Bikaner.[43]

But then, it also states that Chalukyas in the South have origins in Uttar Pradesh:

According to the Nilagunda inscription of King Vikramaditya VI (11th century or later), the Chalukyas originally hailed from Ayodhya where fifty-nine kings ruled, and later, sixteen more of this family ruled from South India where they had migrated. This is repeated by his court poet Bilhana, who claims that the first member of the family, "Chalukya", was so named as he was born in the "hollow of the hands" of God Brahma.[44][45]

In these circumstances, says prof. R. Sathianathaier, it is best to take the Chalukyas as allied to the Gurjaras.[30]

The second time Gujarat is mentioned- it is stated that Chalukyas may in-fact have origins in Gujarat:

Historians such as D R Bhandarkar and Hoernle hold the view that Chalukyas were one of the ruling clans of Gurjaras (or Gujjars), citing the name change of Lata province to Gurjaratra during the reign.Bhandarkar explains that If the chalukyas had not been Gurjars, it is inconceivable how that province could have named Gurjaratra (country ruled or protected by Gurjars) when it was up-till their advent known as Lata.However scholars such as D. P. Dikshit argues that Chalukyas ruled over that part of country formerly known as Lata and taken as Gurjaratra or Gujarat didn't imply the Chalukyas didn't make any change in the nomenclature because of their close association with the region.[29] Dr.V. A. Smith and A. M. T. Jackson also endorsed the view that Chalukyas were branch of famous Gurjars(or Gujjars).[30]

There are ten references to support the statement.

There in an on going edit-war on that Wikipedia page regarding disputed Chalukya origins.

Anyway, here's another source:

History of India - N. Jayapalan - Google Books

^I know a South Indian Brahmin, that claims ancestry in Gujarat. In-fact, all Southern Indian Brahmins are migrants from the North and genetics have proven this to be true. The Southern Brahmins are less ASI (they display a lower "South Indian" component) compared to the non-Brahmin, Southern population. Considering that, it then wouldn't be a surprise if the Southern rulers also had origins in the Northern regions of India.

Why did Rajput landowners convert I wonder? what was the driving factor?
My clan is from Surat region, have Rajput names and can trace ancestral migation from rajput clans from Rajasthan/north Gujarat. yet we are not high caste.

There was considerable missionary work earlier in the Century. Whole villages were converted from what I'm told, but I am not aware of the incentives, other than them really believing in the message that they received. Perhaps the British occupation played a part?

Why aren't you considered High Caste?

 

[Simple_Guy]

Excellent @Libertarian. So now we can say that Deccan Chalukyas were originally north Indian. They can NEVER be called Kannada warriors....LOL.

 

[parijataka]

From what I can see, none of the dynasties and warrior lineages mentioned in this thread are native to Gujarat.

It was not "Gujjus" who showed a strong resolve, but various Rajput and Deccani rulers, who happened to rule parts of the territory we now call "Gujarat".

Well, Rajputs or variants of ruled India most of the time.

In my opinion historically N India faced much greater turmoil and violent upheavals being in the front line of armies entering India from N West leaving us in S India much safer.

 

[Simple_Guy]

 

[Simple_Guy]

Earlier photo is from STAMPONIA BLOG

 

[Tolaha]

But then, it also states that Chalukyas in the South have origins in Uttar Pradesh:

The claim is not that the origins were in Uttar Pradesh but Ayodhya specifically. A number of upstarts who ventured into building an empire have claimed Ayodhya lineage, as it gave some legitimacy to their rule. This practice has been observed not just in numerorus south Indian ventures but in ones outside India as well. Who knows, there might be more kingdoms claiming Ayodhya lineage than the population of Ayodhya itself! BTW the legend that says that Chalukyas had their origin in Ayodhya goes along with the claim how they get their name as well. So you do believe how the Chalukyans were actually born?

Regarding Solankis being Chalukyas, it is a claim made by the Solankis themselves. They too could have just claimed Ayodhya lineage, a direct connection rather. But they did it by claiming their line to be from the Chalukyans. And I havent come across any evidences that they aren't.

^I know a South Indian Brahmin, that claims ancestry in Gujarat. In-fact, all Southern Indian Brahmins are migrants from the North and genetics have proven this to be true. The Southern Brahmins are less ASI (they display a lower "South Indian" component) compared to the non-Brahmin, Southern population. Considering that, it then wouldn't be a surprise if the Southern rulers also had origins in the Northern regions of India.

All southeners, not just the rulers, could have their origin in the North. And prior to that, in Central Asia or Asia Minor or Africa or wherever.....

 

[civfanatic]

But nothing like Gujarat and Rajasthan.

Explain.

By your logic then since there was no united "Rajasthan" back then, there can't be any Rajasthani Rajputs! LOL

That's right. There were no "Rajasthani Rajputs", but rather Mewari Rajputs, Marwari Rajputs, Malwa Rajputs, etc., depending on which region they hailed from.

"Rajasthan" is a modern political grouping only.

So? They originated in Gujarat right. By this logic then Baghela Rajputs in MP are actually Gujju warriors. They can't be called part of MP because in some remote period they came from Gujarat. LOL

If the Solankis were not indigenous to Gujarat, then the Vaghela Rajputs could not be either, since the Vaghela Rajputs were a branch of the Solankis.

LOL. SO at least Babur Humayun spoke it? Why did NONE of the Solanki rulers speak write Kannada.

Their name (Solanki) comes from a Kannadiga dynasty (Chalukya). You need to explain why these rulers in Gujarat adopted the name of a random Kannadiga dynasty, if they weren't descended from the said dynasty. It is well-attested that the period from the 10th-12th centuries saw a great emigration of warriors and elites from Karnataka. These emigrants were the progenitors of numerous political groups and dynasties in North India, like the Senas of Bengal, Rathods, Karnatak kshatriyas of Bihar, etc. Given this context, is perfectly possible that some ruling dynasties of Gujarat during this time were descended from Karnataka.

By the way @civfanatic what exactly is your khujli with Gujarat and Gujaratis? Just curious.

Nothing.

 

[civfanatic]

The Wikipedia article is about the Chalukya Dynasty that ruled parts of Southern and Central India, but not Gujarat. There are only two obscure references to Gujarat, and none claim that rulers of Gujarat had Southern origins. The first quote, from the 'Legends' section, states that only some scholars connect Solankis with Chalukyas:

The same Chalukya dynasty did not rule just South and Central India, but also parts of modern-day Gujarat. When the Arabs invaded Gujarat in the 8th century, they were repulsed by Avanijanashraya Pulakesi, a Chalukya general who was related to the reigning Chalukya emperor.

Link: The architectural antiquities of northern Gujarat: more especially of the ... - James Burgess, Henry Cousens - Google Books

The second time Gujarat is mentioned- it is stated that Chalukyas may in-fact have origins in Gujarat

Gurjara/Gujjar =/= Gujarati. The Gurjars themselves were pastoralists from modern-day Rajasthan and NW India, who expanded south into Gujarat and east into the Gangetic plain during this time (8th-10th centuries). Some even give the Gurjars non-Indian origins, from Central or Western Asia, but I find that unlikely.

But then, it also states that Chalukyas in the South have origins in Uttar Pradesh

There in an on going edit-war on that Wikipedia page regarding disputed Chalukya origins.

It is overwhelmingly agreed by almost all modern historians that the Chalukyas were indigenous to Karnataka. Most of these theories of northern origin are pure speculation and not based on any concrete evidence. It's actually quite astonishing that you are arguing this.

^I know a South Indian Brahmin, that claims ancestry in Gujarat. In-fact, all Southern Indian Brahmins are migrants from the North and genetics have proven this to be true. The Southern Brahmins are less ASI (they display a lower "South Indian" component) compared to the non-Brahmin, Southern population. Considering that, it then wouldn't be a surprise if the Southern rulers also had origins in the Northern regions of India.

There is not a single source which identifies the Chalukyas as brahmins, so this is irrelevant.

 

[civfanatic]

In my opinion historically N India faced much greater turmoil and violent upheavals being in the front line of armies entering India from N West leaving us in S India much safer.

Read the political history of South India from c.1350-1550. There was near-constant warfare between Vijayanagar (another Kannadiga empire) and the Muslim states in the Deccan, along with all their consorted allies. Most of these wars were won by Vijayanagar.

It is a myth that South India was somehow "saved" because North India bore the brunt of the warfare. South India was saved because, under Vijayanagar and even under the preceding dynasties, it was much more militarized and capable of conducting war. Vijayanagar is often called an "Indian war-state" for a reason; its political, economic, and social systems were all geared towards one aim, namely the conduct of war.

In the end, it would be another Deccani power, the Marathas, who would supplant Muslim power in North India.