Warriors of Gujarat

[Singh]

There is also the question of language - a Gujarati brahmin may have more empathy with any other Gujarati, similarly with a Maharashtrian brahmin, Kannadiga brahmin, Tamizh brahmin etc.

Whereas when we say N India I think we mean the Hindi speaking states.

I don't think speaking the same language can change one's genetics unless there has been interbreeding (the proof of which we have now gotten)

 

[Singh]

To the gentleman cribbing about Gujarati build, Dogra Certification hello ?

Gorkhas because of their shorter stature present a smaller silhouette to the enemy, and are less likely target then say a 7ft giant like Khali.

 

[Decklander]

To the gentleman cribbing about Gujarati build, Dogra Certification hello ?

Gorkhas because of their shorter stature present a smaller silhouette to the enemy, and are less likely target then say a 7ft giant like Khali.

Even marathas are known for small body size and height, but look at their valour-second to none.

 

[Singh]

Even marathas are known for small body size and height, but look at their valour-second to none.

No community has a monopoly over valour, bravery, courage or sacrifice. To bolster one's credentials by decrying another's is moronic.

 

[LalTopi]

From what I've seen gujaratis are rather short and small, perhaps even more so than South Indians. Not sure if that is due to their horrific carb laden, protein lacking, cholesterol increasing diet or genes. They don't look like the stereotypical robust north West Indian phenotype.

Well as I am near on 6ft and my son 6ft 3, I will ignore the jibe. But on a more academic note do Gujarati Rajputs eat meat, or Rajputs in general for that matter?
when reading the following book (not specific to Gujarat) it states that historically, at least for Parmar royalty, meat was part of the diet?

http://books.google.com.qa/books?id=IAX_MgEACAAJ&dq=paramaras&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MXoTUrfIBsPqrAeFlIDoBQ&redir_esc=y

 

[pankaj nema]

Though Gujarat's Historical warriors are NOT well known unlike the Rajputs
but we must give FULL credit to Gujarati society for Holding out and NOT converting like their
NEXT door neighbours ie Sindhis

And The Muslim Punjabis of Pakistani Punjab are the MOST useless of ALL
the People who EVER lived in this Subcontinent

Not only they succumed easily but were ALWAYS bending backwards for the Pathans

 

[Singh]

@LETHALFORCE is a Gujarati but he is built like a Rock.

 

[Singh]

Well as I am near on 6ft and my son 6ft 3, I will ignore the jibe. But on a more academic note do Gujarati Rajputs eat meat, or Rajputs in general for that matter?
when reading the following book (not specific to Gujarat) it states that historically, at least for Parmar royalty, meat was part of the diet?

Afaik Rajputs generally do consume meat and alcohol. @Virendra @thakur_ritesh @jatkshatriya would know better.

 

[pankaj nema]

No community has a monopoly over valour, bravery, courage or sacrifice. To bolster one's credentials by decrying another's is moronic.

Sir Nobody is decrying anybody

But yes the Simple facts of History are for all to see

Who fought SUCCESSFULLY against the Islamists for preserving their religion is well known

And in that the Marathas were Not only able to Hold out but also
established a Huge empire

 

[Decklander]

Genetically South Indians have more affinity for each other irresp of castes. In other words, South Indian Brahmins have more affinity with other South Indian groups rather than with North Indian Brahmins.

Brahmins all over India and the world are one single group of people. We follow same traditions and share same Gotras with very minor differences.

 

[SPIEZ]

Genetically South Indians have more affinity for each other irresp of castes. In other words, South Indian Brahmins have more affinity with other South Indian groups rather than with North Indian Brahmins.

From where did you get such an information, this is really puzzle.

Anyways, I believe what you concur is because of the language barrier.

 

[TrueSpirit]

His home also sunk in the ocean. Krishna's "bhoomi" is definitely Vrindavan-Barsana-Mathura belt.

But, he was a quintessential Dwarka-dheesh & Gujarati continue to rever him not just as a God but as their own King.

Narendra Modi has done nothing on the level of Patel or Gandhi, lets not buy into the hype without testing him.

These are desperate times. The nation hopes. So do I (that Modi could fix the rot at top & address the leadership deficit).

India is a rudderless boat at the moment. People hope that Modi have it in him to navigate it along the apt course.

 

[TrueSpirit]

No community has a monopoly over valour, bravery, courage or sacrifice. To bolster one's credentials by decrying another's is moronic.

This is absolutely true. However, in medieval India, certain communities were more warlike than others due to various factors. Similarly, some were more into commerce & trading. Some communities were scribes, accountants, translators & record-owners, etc. etc. Just stating the obvious.

 

[Singh]

Brahmins all over India and the world are one single group of people. We follow same traditions and share same Gotras with very minor differences.

From where did you get such an information, this is really puzzle.

Anyways, I believe what you concur is because of the language barrier.

I don't know much about Gotra or Traditions, but Genetically they are disparate. I have given some links on other relevant threads.

Its been established that 4-1.9 thousand years ago caste system soldified before that Indians irresp used to inter-breed with one another. Hence ANI+ASI is the hallmark for Subcontinentalness.
@Virendra if you might remember this was also the period of Dwapar waning and Kalyuga being ascendant as per Yukteshwar Giri.

 

[Singh]

But, he was a quintessential Dwarka-dheesh & Gujarati continue to rever him not just as a God but as their own King.

Braj reason has been placed at a pedestal by Gaudiya Vaishanavas.

These are desperate times. The nation hopes. So do I (that Modi could fix the rot at top & address the leadership deficit).
India is a rudderless boat at the moment. People hope that Modi have it in him to navigate it along the apt course.

Don't expect Modi to clean the mess in 1 term.

 

[Singh]

This is absolutely true. However, in medieval India, certain communities were more warlike than others due to various factors. Similarly, some were more into commerce & trading. Some communities were scribes, accountants, translators & record-owners, etc. etc. Just stating the obvious.

Being mercantile or warlike has no bearings on the qualities I mentioned. In a sense of aggression perhaps it made a difference.

 

[TrueSpirit]

No community has a monopoly over valour, bravery, courage or sacrifice. To bolster one's credentials by decrying another's is moronic.

Please get civfanatic to understand this.

As per him, all that which was of any consequence in India, was in Southern kingdoms.

Apart from that, only Chinese, Persians & Central Asians are worth respecting, while Indians are the most derided/ignominious lot in the world.

Ask me & I would produce dozens of his posts to the above effect.

He has this compulsive obsession in downplaying North Indian's (history, especially) which to me is more than moronic.

I would call it being plane ol' ungrateful (you do know what is the term used for ungrateful in Hindustani lingo, something like H****khor, right ?).

 

[Singh]

Haramkhor means one who eats things which are not Halal.

 

[Singh]

@TrueSpirit I don't want to bring in another member into this debate in which you and I are pretty much on the same plane. Its not very nice to deride another member.

 

[civfanatic]

You mislead people, when you only tell half the story. The truth is that it was actually a combined effort on the part of Nagabhata I of Gurjara Prathira Dynasty of North India, and the Chalukya Dynasty of South India that succeded in warding off the Arab forces:

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.

Do you not realize that the state of Gujarat acquired its name from Gurjars?

The Abu mountains, the "abode" of the Gurjars, are located in South Rajasthan- right on the border with Gujarat.

I have relatives that reside in Mount Abu and I've visited that area when I younger (lived there for like 10 - 15 days at a time). Until recently, I actually didn't even realize, that Abu mountains fell on to the Rajasthan side.

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.

Also, until the late 8th century, most of Gujarat, with the exception of the southern regions (which were under Chalukya rule), was ruled by an independent dynasty based in Vallabhi called the Maitrakas. 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.

Lastly, Gujarat is a part of North West India. To be precise, Gujarat is the Southern most region of the North West Indian corridor (or the Western most region of India). Gujarat is not South India.

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.

What's astonishing is the fact that Gujaratis are having their history stolen. Moving on...

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.

Actually, your very own source from the Chalukya Dynasty Wikipedia page, claims Chalukyas as being of Brahmin stock

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.

Link: Si-yu-ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World - Hsüan-tsang - Google Books

Brahmins are not native to South India. This same souce also goes on to state that the Solankis of Annila-Pattana (which is in Gujarat) have no connection whatsoever, to the Chaluklyas of South India. (Anahila-Pattana is in Gujarat.)

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.

As for the origins of the Chalukyas/Solankis of Gujarat, I already mentioned in a previous post that they might have been Gurjars who migrated south and adopted the Chalukya name for prestige purposes (possibly via intermarriage with some Chalukya descendants). The theory of Gurjara origin seems to be popular with historians nowadays. Again, it doesn't really matter, because the Gurjaras are not native to Gujarat, either.