Warriors of Gujarat

[TrueSpirit]

Adam khor = cannibal or one who eats man
Muft khor = freeloader or one who eats what he gets for free
Haram Khor = one who eats haram food or one who earns money through haram means

Ok, I thought HaramKhor is someone who eats someone "namak" & commits treachery, like a "NamakHaram"

 

[civfanatic]

Ok, North Indians have the gall to insult the hallowed Persians !!!!

Some on DFI even go to the extent of deriding/snubbing the Mighty Han !!!

Ultimate blasphemy, isn't it ?

You should learn to respect other civilizations. It is the manner of uncouth barbarians to insult others simply because they belong to a different land. In fact, I would say it most un-Indian to do so.

That the North Indians continue to dominate Indian Army (especially Rajasthan, UP, Uttaranchal, Punjab, Himachal, Haryana, J&K) is enough of a fact to see who has the balls & who are agents of vanquished-imperialists.........

North Indians also dominated in the British Indian Army and were agents of imperialism on a global scale. They fought everywhere from West Africa to Southern China in the name of the Queen. Since the modern Indian Army is a carryover from the British Indian Army, it is natural that families which have had a martial history during British times continue to enlist in the army today. It is common practice even today for Indians to follow in the same occupation as their forefathers.

In South India, military service is generally not viewed with the same prestige as it among, say, Sikhs or Gurkhas. Most South Indians aspire to be doctors or engineers, not soldiers. I don't have a problem with this, because I know Singh is there to protect me. It wasn't so in the 1300s.

 

[civfanatic]

Persia got Islamized completely while India is still a Hindu-majority country (85% + Hindus & indigenous religion). That is, despite India being under attack for over 1300 years.

Enough to show who had the balls & resolve & who prevailed.

Persians were licking Arab boots in no time, while Indians successfully defended till the end & we are in a way better shape than outcast nations like Persia which is ruled by religious fanatics/extremists (de-facto) & has little worth respecting, except its gas & some oil.

You lack knowledge of history. Islamization in Iran was not forced on the indigenous population by Arabs. Effective Arab rule in Persia lasted for less than two centuries. By the 9th century, almost all of the country (and eventually the Caliphate itself) would be in the hands of Persians. It was under the native Persian Muslim dynasties that Islam spread to the masses, not under the Arabs. Islamization was done under the Persians' own terms, and with respect to their own culture and language.

India is among the 3 major contenders for UN Security Council while Iran is pariah nation whose ruling regime exercises its power through extremist zealots like Revolutionary Guards & whose most popular export other than gas (even that has been sanctioned now) is Hezbollah.

While India competes with China & is the world's fourth largest economy & fourth most powerful nation in terms of hard power (quantifiable) as well as sixth in soft-power (subjective measure), Iran is nowhere to be seen.

And you still have the gall to compare India (world's sole surviving pagan civilization) with an international nobody (rather, a leper to most nations) like Iran (the legatee of Persian Empire).

So much for your beloved Persians

Iran is a pariah only in the eyes of the West. India still trades with Iran and so does Russia and China. Iran is a middle-income country and quite well-developed. I already posted a statistical comparison of Iran and North India in another thread, and I don't want to do it again. Just learn how to respect other nations.

 

[SPIEZ]

Stop ranting.

You should learn to respect other civilizations. It is the manner of uncouth barbarians to insult others simply because they belong to a different land. In fact, I would say it most un-Indian to do so.

I beg to differ, Indians (like you too) have a habit of bending their backs and welcoming foreigners. This dirty habit hasn't even left us now.
See for example: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ign-sanction-hindu-intellectual-property.html

In South India, military service is generally not viewed with the same prestige as it among, say, Sikhs or Gurkhas. Most South Indians aspire to be doctors or engineers, not soldiers. I don't have a problem with this, because I know Singh is there to protect me. It wasn't so in the 1300s.

That is only through your partial glasses.

 

[civfanatic]

I beg to differ, Indians (like you too) have a habit of bending their backs and welcoming foreigners. This dirty habit hasn't even left us now.
See for example: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ign-sanction-hindu-intellectual-property.html

There is a difference between "bending backs for foreigners" and having respect for others. People who are confident in their own identities can appreciate the contributions of other nations and cultures without becoming mental slaves of them. Those who are insecure in their identities, feel they must validate their own identities by attacking others. This is what Pakis do.

That is only through your partial glasses.

It is the truth, more or less.

 

[SPIEZ]

There is a difference between "bending backs for foreigners" and having respect for others.

There is a saying respect is earned not demanded.

People who are confident in their own identities can appreciate the contributions of other nations and cultures without becoming mental slaves of them. Those who are insecure in their identities, feel they must validate their own identities by attacking others. This is what Pakis do.

We must first learn to respect ourselves and than respect our own history, than we can learn to respect others (which Indians and people like you have been doing for a long time).

How lame is it to glorify a third state and bring down our own?

Not withstanding what the invaders have done or who they were, how easy has it been for you to blame a fellow member of your own country in support of some foreign invaders

It is the truth, more or less.

What do you know about South India or in fact India.

I do not want to get into a arguement.

Give me the facts until than stop ranting and cherio.

 

[Decklander]

You should learn to respect other civilizations. It is the manner of uncouth barbarians to insult others simply because they belong to a different land. In fact, I would say it most un-Indian to do so.




North Indians also dominated in the British Indian Army and were agents of imperialism on a global scale. They fought everywhere from West Africa to Southern China in the name of the Queen. Since the modern Indian Army is a carryover from the British Indian Army, it is natural that families which have had a martial history during British times continue to enlist in the army today. It is common practice even today for Indians to follow in the same occupation as their forefathers.

In South India, military service is generally not viewed with the same prestige as it among, say, Sikhs or Gurkhas. Most South Indians aspire to be doctors or engineers, not soldiers. I don't have a problem with this, because I know Singh is there to protect me. It wasn't so in the 1300s.

I take offence to your statement. The first place which East India company occupied was Madras Residency. The Hindus of Madras state were the first ones to join hand with british and serve under them to remove Tipu Sultan. many call Tipu a valiant Indian King, IMHO he was as big a muslim fanatic as babur. he became seculer to save his skin when Tamils, Malayalies of Travancore and Coorgies joined hands with British to defeat him. Next was Calcata or Bengal. Robert Clive started his journey with mostly Bhumihaar brahmins and rajputs against a muslim ruler who was terrorising the Hindu population.
You are grossly wrong about military service in South India. The best and finest fighters of India were from South and it was for this reason that even with largest empire of that time and most Indian kings providing army to monguls, they were never able to win present day Tamilnadu and Travancore.

 

[civfanatic]

We must first learn to respect ourselves and than respect our own history, than we can learn to respect others (which Indians and people like you have been doing for a long time).

I have enough respect for my own history. I also know the not-so-good sides of our history that are brushed aside by the ignorant. I don't need advice from other people on how to respect myself.

How lame is it to glorify a third state and bring down our own?
Not withstanding what the invaders have done or who they were, how easy has it been for you to blame a fellow member of your own country in support of some foreign invaders

Said members were promoting pseudo-history and plain ignorance, and had to be shown their place. As you said, respect is to be earned and not demanded. So why should I respect people who are ignorant and distort history (such as making a thread with the title 'Warriors of Gujarat' when most are not native Gujaratis)?

What do you know about South India or in fact India.

I do not want to get into a arguement.

Give me the facts until than stop ranting and cherio.

Another member mentioned that South Indians are underrepresented in the Indian Army compared to North Indians, and I gave a partial explanation why. Go reply to him if you are so concerned by it.

 

[civfanatic]

You are grossly wrong about military service in South India. The best and finest fighters of India were from South and it was for this reason that even with largest empire of that time and most Indian kings providing army to monguls, they were never able to win present day Tamilnadu and Travancore.

Have you even read my posts? I said the same thing.

 

[SPIEZ]

Said members were promoting pseudo-history and plain ignorance, and had to be shown their place. As you said, respect is to be earned and not demanded. So why should I respect people who are ignorant and distort history (such as making a thread with the title 'Warriors of Gujarat' when most or not native Gujaratis)?

If that is the case stick your arguement and prove him guilty. Do not go out of terms and start ranting about others.
Besides that let's all stick to facts.

Another member mentioned that South Indians are underrepresented in the Indian Army compared to North Indians, and I gave a partial explanation why. Go reply to him if you are so concerned by it.

As you have already mentioned, I understand his ignorance, and didn't go around hailing a some foreigner for it. Bedsides Deck has already proved the point for me.
There isn't much left for me to say.

 

[LalTopi]

Yes Meat and Alcohol is consumed by Rajputs. It wasn't so prevalant before medieval centuries. Meat and Alcohol consumption was ceremonial and limited even among the martial sections of the society back then.
Arrival of Islamic entities changed a lot of things. Increased use of Meat, Alcohol and enforcement of veils for women are only a few points of the cultural impact.

Regards,
Virendra

So there is a tradition dating back to medieval times. Please provide links if possible, as I have had numerous debates on this.

Would also be interested in the practice of modern day Rajput communities with respect to meat and alcohol for 1) communities outside of Gujarat versus 2) communities within Gujarat due to heightened vegetation culture in Gujarat generally. Would welcome views of current forum members.

 

[Libertarian]

South Indian Brahmins cluster with other South Indian groups. North Indian Brahmins have lesser ASI component, greater ANI component, and a significant other components too(Caucasian).

South Indian Brahmins cluster closer to the non-Brahmin North Indian populations, such as Uttar Pradesh Kshatriyas and Rajasthanis, than they do with the local South Indian population:

Spoiler

rajasthani harappa 4
48% South Indian
35% Baloch
5% Caucasian
4% NE Euro

up-kshatriya metspalu 7
45% South Indian
37% Baloch
4% Caucasian
8% NE Euro

brahmin-tamil-nadu metspalu 2
47% South Indian
38% Baloch
6% Caucasian
5% NE Euro

iyengar-brahmin harappa 7
48% South Indian
37% Baloch
4% Caucasian
6% NE Euro

iyer-brahmin harappa 11
47% South Indian
37% Baloch
5% Caucasian
5% NE Euro

kerala-brahmin harappa 1
43% South Indian
39% Baloch
4% Caucasian
6% NE Euro

tn-brahmin xing 14
47% South Indian
38% Baloch
6% Caucasian
4% NE Euro

karnataka-brahmin harappa 4
47% South Indian
36% Baloch
4% Caucasian
6% NE Euro


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuW3R0Ys-P4HdDhib1M5OE1wWENNb2haUFFWZzNBMEE#gid=0

279/6 = 46.5
2.5218942 + (0.8104836 x 46.5) =
The ASI scores for the six South Indian Brahmin group comes out to: 40.2%

ASI for Rajasthanis: 41.4%
ASI for UP Kshatriyas: 38.9%

The were two separate Arab invasions of India at that time. One crossed Saurashtra and was defeated at Navsari by the Lata branch of the Chalukyas. A separate, and most likely subsequent, Arab invasion crossed Rajasthan and was defeated in Malwa by the Gurjaras. Read your own source again. It mentions that Nagabhata defeated the Arabs at Ujjain (capital of Malwa, and center of the Gurjara kingdom), not in Gujarat.

The Arabs overran several smaller Kingdoms in Gujarat, but were supposedly defeated by Jayabhata of Nandipuri. Naghabhata's forces met with the Arab contigent, probably somewhere in Western Malwa. Since the inscriptions of the battle were undated, it is not known if it was subsequent invasion following the Navasari battle or if it was a different Arab contigent of the same invasion.

That doesn't mean they are native to Gujarat. There are plenty of instances, in India and in other parts of the world, where a conquering people gives their name to the land they conquered. Rohilkhand is named after the Rohilla Afghans, but that doesn't mean Afghans are native to northeast UP. The Angles and Franks, both Germanic tribes, gave their names to England and France, respectively. The Bulgars and Turks, both originally from the Eurasian steppes, gave their names to Bulgaria and Turkey. I could go on.

The theory that the Gujjars originate in southern Rajasthan is just that - a theory. No one knows exactly where the Gujjars originally came from, because Indian sources are silent on them before the early medieval period. Even then, southern Rajasthan is not the same as Gujarat. Yes, there are cultural commonalities between them, just like there are cultural commonalities between any two neighboring regions in India. I have been to parts of rural Karnataka neighboring Andhra, and for all I knew I could have still been in Andhra. Both the Chalukya capital of Badami and the Rashtrakuta capital of Manyakheta are just a few kilometers from the border with Andhra Pradesh, and both states expanded into modern AP. But I would never say that these Kannadiga dynasties were indigenous to Andhra.

The Rohilkhand analogy does not apply here since Afghanistan is a long way from Uttar Pradesh. Mount Abu, on the other hand, is barely even in Rajasthan:

^I actually wouldn't be surprised if the Gurjar 'abode' included regions in North Gujarat, since Mount Abu encompasses a rather small geographical area (relatively speaking) and also considering that the borders at that time were porous. "Gurjardesha," "Gurjara Ratta" and "Gujarat Mandala" were terms used to denote Southern Rajasthan and Northern Gujarat at the time.

Oh and Gurjars are South Asian. The theory about Gujjars having migrated from somewhere in Central Asia is nothing but poppycock.

They were the descendants of a Gupta general who conquered Gujarat in the 5th century. It was only after the fall of the Maitrakas, that the Gurjaras brought much of modern territory of Gujarat under their rule.

Bharatka did not "conquer" Gujarat. The Gupta Empire acquired Gujarat between 388 to 401, but the Maitraka dynasty was founded much later in 475. The original general or whoever it was that 'conquered' Gujarat was probably deceased or too old and senile to have started the Maitraka Dynasty.

No, Gujarat is not part of Northwest India. When historians and geographers talk of NW India, they are talking of Panjab, Kashmir, modern Pakistan, etc. Gujarat is considered to be part not of NW India but Western India, along with parts of Maharashtra.

Gujarat is either extreme West India, or (the Southern most region of) North West India:

Gujarat, in extreme northwestern India, is ornithologically one of the subcontinent's richest areas—and one of its least well known.

WINGS Birding Tours to India: the West - Gujarat and the Rann of Kutch – Itinerary

Gujarat's economy. India's Guangdong. A north-western state offers a glimpse of a possible industrial future for India.

Gujarat's economy: India's Guangdong | The Economist

Gujarat is a State in northwestern India, on the border with Pakistan and Rajasthan in the north east, Madhya Pradesh in the east, and Maharashtra and the Union territories of Diu, Daman, Dadra and Nagar Haveli in the south. The Arabian Sea borders the state both to the west and the south west.

Gujarat State Portal | All About Gujarat | History

^Not North West India based on geography alone, Gujarat actually shares considerably history and culture with Rajasthan and the Sindh region of Pakistan. Both Gujarati and Rajasthani are closley related languages, decended from the ancestor language Old Gujarati, AKA Maru-Gujar or Maruwani. In the Kutch region of Gujarat, the Kutchi language is spoken, which is a dialect of Sindhi with Gujarati loan words. Kutchi is also mutually intelligible with the Sindhi language, but not with Gujarati. Even genetically, Kutchis such as Lohanas or Bhatis are nearly identical to Sindhis in Pakistan. Really, its foolhardy for anyone to separate Gujarat from the rest of North West India.

If Gujarat is not North West India based on geography, then Uttarkhand is not North India, but North-East India based on that same logic.

Seems like the opposite is happening to me. A thread is made with the title "Warriors of Gujarat", when most of the people mentioned simply lived and ruled in Gujarat, but were not native to it. By the same logic, people like Rudradaman and Mahmud Begarha could also be called "Warriors of Gujarat" with equal accuracy.

Which people mentioned are not native to Gujarat? Solankis, Chauhans and Gohils mentioned, are native Guajratis. If they are not native, then I don't know what a native Gujarati is. Or are you suggesting that only the Adivasi tribals are the real and only Gujaratis?

I don't know which primary source document the author is relying on for evidence, because none of the primary sources I have seen describe the Chalukyas as brahmins. For example, the Chinese traveler Hsuan-tsang, who visited India in the 7th century, states that the Chalukya king Pulakesin II was a kshatriya.

Chalukyas were higher Caste Hindus. Do you think that these higher Caste Hindus were native to Karnataka? No. The same way you mention that Gujarat was ruled by people outside Gujarat that migrated and settled there, those Chalukyas were also migrants or conquerors of Karnataka from the North West.

The author you quoted explicitly says that the Chalukyas, although Brahmins (according to him), were an "indigenous clan" and "belonged" to Karnataka. So either the author is wrong, or you are wrong, or both.

People have misconstrued the authors intened usage of the term "indigenous". The author implied that the Chalukyas were not outsiders (as in foreigners from outside South Asia) but that they were Brahmins, native to India.

 

[Singh]

@Libertarian

Are you a South Indian Brahmin ?

in any case way to cherry pick data from Zack Ajmal's website.


Here is Khan's better analysis of Ajmal's dataset.


Ethnicity Language S.Indian Baloch Caucasian NE.Euro
Karnataka Brahmin Dravidian 47% 38% 4% 6%
Karnataka Hebbar Iyengar Brahmin Dravidian 49% 36% 5% 5%
Karnataka Iyengar Dravidian 48% 39% 3% 5%
Karnataka Iyengar Brahmin Dravidian 48% 37% 3% 7%
Karnataka Kannada Brahmin Dravidian 51% 35% 3% 5%
Karnataka Konkani Brahmin Dravidian 47% 37% 2% 6%
Kerala Brahmin Dravidian 43% 39% 4% 6%
Tamil Brahmin Dravidian 46% 40% 3% 6%
Tamil Brahmin Dravidian 47% 40% 3% 5%
Tamil Brahmin Dravidian 48% 39% 9% 4%
Tamil Brahmin Dravidian 47% 38% 6% 4%
Tamil Brahmin Dravidian 48% 37% 6% 5%
Tamil Brahmin Dravidian 48% 37% 3% 5%
Tamil Brahmin Dravidian 48% 35% 5% 6%
Tamil Brahmin Iyengar Dravidian 47% 38% 6% 4%
Tamil Brahmin Iyengar Dravidian 47% 35% 6% 6%
Tamil Brahmin Iyengar Dravidian 50% 35% 2% 8%
Tamil Brahmin iyer/iyengar Dravidian 48% 38% 2% 5%
Tamil Brahmin iyer/iyengar Dravidian 48% 38% 4% 5%
Tamil Brahmin iyer/iyengar Dravidian 47% 37% 2% 5%
Tamil Brahmin iyer/iyengar Dravidian 47% 37% 6% 8%

Bengali Brahmin IE 43% 35% 4% 10%
Bengali Brahmin IE 45% 35% 2% 11%
Bengali Brahmin IE 44% 35% 5% 11%
Bihari Brahmin IE 39% 38% 5% 11%

Maharashtra/Madhya Pradesh Saraswat Brahmin IE 47% 39% 1% 6%
Mahrashtrian Desastha Brahmin IE 46% 38% 8% 5%

Oriya Brahmin IE 47% 36% 0% 9%

Punjabi Brahmin IE 33% 41% 13% 10%
Punjabi Brahmin IE 35% 40% 8% 11%
Rajasthani Brahmin IE 32% 38% 9% 15%
Sindhi Pushtikar/Pushkarna Brahmin IE 31% 36% 12% 10%
UP Brahmin IE 37% 38% 2% 14%
UP Brahmin IE 41% 37% 7% 11%


Here are some more stats from Ajmal's website

 

[civfanatic]

The Arabs overran several smaller Kingdoms in Gujarat, but were supposedly defeated by Jayabhata of Nandipuri. Naghabhata's forces met with the Arab contigent, probably somewhere in Western Malwa. Since the inscriptions of the battle were undated, it is not known if it was subsequent invasion following the Navasari battle or if it was a different Arab contigent of the same invasion.

Jayabhata IV's claimed defeat of the Arabs took place in 735-36 C.E. in Saurashtra. Jayabhata was most likely a vassal of the ruling Maitrakas, who as mentioned before were based at Vallabhi in Saurashtra, and was fighting under them. At any rate, this victory was not decisive and did not halt the Arab advance into Gujarat. The Arabs advanced further south and were defeated several years later (738-739 C.E.) by the Chalukyas at Navsari. It was only here that the Arab advance was stopped, and there are no records of the Arabs advancing any further than Navsari. Moreover, in the Navsari plate inscriptions of Avanijanashraya Pulakesi, it is stated that the Arabs defeated and overran Saurashtra (before their defeat at Navsari), along with a host of other minor principalities.

As far as we know, the Gurjara king Nagabhata had nothing to do with this defence of Gujarat (as you apparently tried to claim). He was ruling in Malwa and defeated a separate Arab invasion in his lands, which came via Rajasthan rather than via Saurashtra.

The Rohilkhand analogy does not apply here since Afghanistan is a long way from Uttar Pradesh. Mount Abu, on the other hand, is barely even in Rajasthan

The example of Rohilkhand was just meant to show that just because a region is named after a certain people, doesn't mean that the said people are native to the region. A better analogy for the Gujarat/Gurjar case would be that of France and the Franks. The Franks were Germanic tribesmen who had their origins in the modern-day Low Countries and western Germany, i.e. the areas immediately northeast of modern-day France. Following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, they conquered most of modern-day France and gave it its present name (Francia, i.e. Land of the Franks). This doesn't mean that the Franks were native to France.

BTW, the city of Gujranwala in the Panjab also derives its name from the Gurjars. So are Gurjars native to Panjab?

Bharatka did not "conquer" Gujarat. The Gupta Empire acquired Gujarat between 388 to 401, but the Maitraka dynasty was founded much later in 475. The original general or whoever it was that 'conquered' Gujarat was probably deceased or too old and senile to have started the Maitraka Dynasty.

You're right, Bhatarka did not conquer Gujarat. That was an error on my part. He seems to have established an independent dynasty in Gujarat after the central authority of the Guptas decayed.

Gujarat is either extreme West India, or (the Southern most region of) North West India

It is Western India, nothing "extreme" about it. This is seriously the first time I have ever heard of Gujarat being called a part of NW India. Can you show me a single historian of India who uses the term "Northwest India" in reference to Gujarat? Like I said, this term is historically used to refer to Panjab, Kashmir, Sindh, and NWFP. Even Rajasthan would also be better described as Western India than NW India.

If Gujarat is not North West India based on geography, then Uttarkhand is not North India, but North-East India based on that same logic.

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

Which people mentioned are not native to Gujarat? Solankis, Chauhans and Gohils mentioned, are native Guajratis. If they are not native, then I don't know what a native Gujarati is. Or are you suggesting that only the Adivasi tribals are the real and only Gujaratis?

Solankis, Chauhans, and Gohils all most likely have their origins in modern Rajasthan. If these Rajputs are "native" to Gujarat, then I can claim Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas as "natives" of Andhra.

The "real" Gujaratis would be those people who have lived in the territory of the modern Gujarat since Harappan times, or before. This would include the Adivasis, yes, but there were clearly other groups in Gujarat as well, thousands of years before any of these Rajput clans migrated to Gujarat. The existence of such ancient cities as Lothal proves that there was a substantial human population in Gujarat with a sophisticated civilization long before these warrior migrations from outside.

Chalukyas were higher Caste Hindus. Do you think that these higher Caste Hindus were native to Karnataka? No. The same way you mention that Gujarat was ruled by people outside Gujarat that migrated and settled there, those Chalukyas were also migrants or conquerors of Karnataka from the North West.

The only problem is that we have solid evidence that the Gurjars who ruled Gujarat were from outside Gujarat, but there is no such evidence that Chalukyas were from outside of Karnataka. Varnas like kshatriya, vaisya, shudra, etc. are simply ritual labels given by Brahmins to those that are considered ritually inferior. They don't tell much about the actual ethnic origins of people. The varna status of certain groups can be raised and lowered, and indeed have been throughout history. Especially in South India and the Deccan, local dynasties who gained power and influence would patronize/bribe brahmins to construct bogus genealogies and raise their varna status from shudra to kshatriya, thus granting their rule more legitimacy. Examples of such ritual elevations and genealogical fabrications can be seen with the Cholas, Kakatiyas, and Marathas under Shivaji, among others. Claiming descent from Ayodhya was also a popular meme, and not just among Indian rulers, as discussed previously in the thread.

The bottom line is that, given all of our current information, it is very, very likely that the Chalukyas were natives of Karnataka.

People have misconstrued the authors intened usage of the term "indigenous". The author implied that the Chalukyas were not outsiders (as in foreigners from outside South Asia) but that they were Brahmins, native to India.

Actually, the author explicitly says that the Chalukyas "belonged to the Karnataka country".

It doesn't seem like the author agrees with your view that all brahmins are originally from North India. So again, either the author is wrong, you are wrong, or both.

 

[civfanatic]

If that is the case stick your arguement and prove him guilty. Do not go out of terms and start ranting about others.
Besides that let's all stick to facts.

As you have already mentioned, I understand his ignorance, and didn't go around hailing a some foreigner for it. Bedsides Deck has already proved the point for me.
There isn't much left for me to say.

I suggest you look back in the thread and read my posts. I was not the one who brought up Persians or even South Indians. I simply questioned the premise of calling this thread 'Warriors of Gujarat', because it seemed to me like an inaccurate depiction of the warrior-dynasties mentioned in this thread. However, some members here were incapable of countering my arguments logically or coherently, and so resorted to attacking other nations and people. These people are so insecure, it's funny.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Uddotana's prakrit creation 'Kuvalayamala' from 779 CE Jalor, Rajasthan (contemporary to early Pratihara times) is making reference to the adjoining territories of Pratihara Kingdom. It calles them - Maru, Malava, Gurjar, Lata, Madhyadesa, Takka, and Sindhu.

Even in late medieval and modern history the word Gurjar was being used in territorial sense, rather than tribal, in certain parts of India.
Rajputana gazetteer 1879 reports that in Marwar the word Gurjar is used to designate Gujarat. Then the 1883 Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency reports that in Maharashtra the vani (vanik i.e. traders) were named after the provinces of their origin; hence the word Gurjar was used for a Vani from Gujarat while Marwari was used for a Marwar based Vani.

Wow. So Gurjara is simply the old name of Gujarat and parts of Rajasthan. That makes more sense than the British theory of invasion.

Most importantly the Imperial pratihars in their inscriptions do not mention the Gurjar term in clan/tribe sense at all.
Lastly, the communities like the Gurjar Kshatriyas, Gurjar Vanias, Gurjar Jains, and Gurjar Oswals, all live in the state of Gujarat and speak the Gujarati language. But but but .. they are not found anywhere outside Gurjaratra.

Excellent. If there had been any actual "Gurjara" invasion then these communities would have been found all over India along the invasion route. That shows how much the British have distorted Indian history, starting with the "Aryan" invasion theory.

 

[civfanatic]

I think Vijaynagar's military prowess was no less than their northern peers but just that its role in fighting medieval invaders is limited to fewer centuries in comparison. Reasons are less about one being greater than the other and more about the reach of invaders in various times/centuries.
I find it bitter to compare our own people like this. We do no justice to them. Lets desist from this going further.

Actually, Babur in his autobiography explicitly states that Vijayanagar was the most powerful state in India. His opinion is quite significant, since he actually fought the battles which made history, and was not a mere historian.

Vijayanagar had nothing to do with the defence of North India, and Rajputs had nothing to do with the defence of South India. From the overthrow of Delhi's power south of the Vindhyas in the 14th century to the southwards expansion of Mughal imperialism in the 17th century, the two regions were largely distinct geopolitical fields. The problem arises when people make nonsensical claims like "there would be no Hindu in India without Rajputs" and "Rajputs insulated South India from foreign attacks". These are just fanboyish statements and need to be demolished.

 

[Simple_Guy]

KUTCH MUSEUM

The oldest museum in Gujarat, it was founded by Maharao Khengarji of Kutch in the year 1877 and has some fascinating collection of coins including the local currency of Kutch — kori.

In addition to a section that is exclusively dedicated to tribal cultures with various specimens of ancient artefacts, folk arts and crafts and some information on the tribal people. Other than these, the museum also has on display specimens of embroidered clothes, paintings, arms and ammunitions, musical instruments, sculptures and other precious metal work.

Consisting of two floors, the Kutch Museum boasts of a picture gallery, an anthropological section, an archaeological section, a separate section on textiles, weapons, musical instruments, and a shipping section as well.

While the section on textiles displays various textiles, fabrics and embroidered clothes of the tribes of Bhuj, the section on music will leave you spellbound with its collection of musical instruments like veena, dilruba, along with folk musical instruments like kani, nagfani and morchang among others.

Other sections like a section on shipping displays the various models that were made in Mandvi in addition to sexton and other equipments used by sailors along with the permission documents, which were required to dock at any port of the world. There is even a map depicting the route of the earlier sailors.

However the main attraction of the museum is Airavat – a seven trunked snow white elephant belonging to Lord Indra. Painted in the local kamagiri style with flowers and creepers, the elephant is an 18th century wooden masterpiece from Mandvi. In addition, a model of wild ass and flamingo are other attractions of the museum. The museum also has crocodiles caught from Hamirsar Tank on display among the first ever python caught in Kutch.

Besides these major attractions, the other artefacts on display at the museum are items like a dish, which is a round silver tray that demonstrates the skill of the craftsmen as well as the wealth of the people of Kutch, early 20th century ornamented doors that speak about the superb workmanship of craftsmen from Narayan Sarovar among other things. Along with a few specimens of knives and nut crackers that are very popular in Kutch.

Kutch Museum

Mod: Edited for spelling fix

 

[Simple_Guy]

A fascinating find on Kutch: from India Today magazine.

During the 1962 war with China, Madansinhji Jadeja, the then Maharao of Kutch, India's western-most princely state known for its unique terrain and culture, donated more than 100 kg gold in the service of the nation responding to an appeal from then Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.

Madansinhji - who joined the Indian Foreign Service following the merger and became ambassador to Norway - got his gold back after the war. However, his act underlined the dictum of the 502-year-old Kutch dynasty of the Jadeja clan as inscribed on a Tamrapatra issued by his ancestor Maharao Lakhpatji in 1752. In the metal document, Lakhpatji said, "My subjects won't be overtaxed or harassed by my descendants. All important state issues will be decided by a joint team of the state and the people."

At a personal cost of Rs 5 crore, he undertook the restoration of the majestic Pragmahal Palace - India's first neo-Gothic structure marked by a massive clock tower and Arraish and Stucco carvings and built by his ancestor and namesake Pragmalji II in 1865. Pragmalji explains, "We chose Pragmahal because it has more heritage value than Ranjit Vilas. And what's so great about us using our private funds for it? After all the palace was built by my ancestor." Members of the royal families of Sirohi, Gondal, Baria, Santrampur, Sitamau, Samode and as far as Kawardha in Chhattisgarh and Panna and Chattarpur in Bundelkhand, amongst others, were present on the occasion.

The couple's driving theme is pride in one's culture. Pragmalji proudly narrates the details of the terrible 1762 battle of Jhara in which thousands of Kutchi soldiers laid down their lives fighting for the independence of Kutch against the Sindhi invader Ghulam Shah Kalhora. "We have to live up to the expectation of these great souls who sacrificed their lives for the motherland," they say.

My salute to these patriotic Gujarati warriors!

 

[Simple_Guy]

Maharao Pragmalji-III with his wife Maharani Pritidevi feed fodder to cattle in the age-old tradition of ancient Indian Kings, on the occasion of the Maharani's 75th birthday. Photo by Shailesh Raval/India Today