Warriors of Gujarat

[Simple_Guy]

A large portrait of Maharao Pragmulji Saheb of Kutch (reg. 1860-75) from forgelynch. The Maharao was born in 1839 and succeeded his father Desalji II as Maharao of Kutch in western Gujarat in 1860. He was an independent ruler under the Victorian Raj and he made considerable efforts to modernise his state during his rule. He is shown wearing a traditional royal Kutchi turban, seated on a terrace and resting his left hand on the hilt of his sword.

 

[Virendra]

From my interactions Dogra invariably is used by Rajputs to describe themselves.
Most of the celebrated Dogra Military Hereoes have been Rajputs.

Banda Singh Bahadur was born in Rajput/Dogra Family as per almost all respected and authentic Sikh sources. In any case his achievements are wholly and solely attributable to the Sikh community. So were most of Zorawar Singh's.

Probably the confusion is because Bharadwaj gotra is found among both - Rajputs as well as Brahmins. Hard to tell...

 

[Singh]

A large portrait of Maharao Pragmulji Saheb of Kutch (reg. 1860-75) from forgelynch. The Maharao was born in 1839 and succeeded his father Desalji II as Maharao of Kutch in western Gujarat in 1860. He was an independent ruler under the Victorian Raj and he made considerable efforts to modernise his state during his rule. He is shown wearing a traditional royal Kutchi turban, seated on a terrace and resting his left hand on the hilt of his sword.

This photo has a slight issue unless its a mirror image; the turban should be overlapping and/or smooth from the right. Rajputs and Sikhs traditionally wear such a turban. Jaats and Gujjars used to wear it overlapping from the left.

For eg.

Rajput and Sikh Turbans

[/IMG]

Traditional Jaat and Gujjar Turbans

 

[Singh]

Probably the confusion is because Bharadwaj gotra is found among both - Rajputs as well as Brahmins. Hard to tell...

I am sure there could be commonality of Gotras, but no Sikh source attests to his Brahmin origins, whether contemporary or recent.

 

[Virendra]

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.

Babur is a good but not the best and only argument to seal this. First he was an invader who came in for a short period.
Second, he never went down south to really look down deep into Vijaynagar's potency vividly. At best what he got to judge was the information of his spies and hearsay. I would rather not do a no.1 and no.2. I just know that both (Mewar and Vijaynagar) were very strong and that is enough for me.

Vijayanagar had nothing to do with the defence of North India, and Rajputs had nothing to do with the defence of South India.

Well yes explcitily and deliberately neither the Rajputs tried to protect south India nor vice versa. (No nation state back then)
But implicitly, ofcourse if Rajputs bite down an northwestern invasion and keep resisting - it does stall and stop that invasive power from spilling down south. Same would apply for northerners to a case of southern invasion being held in by Vijaynagar or some other southern Kingdom.
In case of India this resistance had delayed and diluted the invasions spillover for centuries (Arabs, Turks and Mughals included).

nonsensical claims like "there would be no Hindu in India without Rajputs"

If I were to take liberties with hypothesis - north India is more accurate for that phrase.

and "Rajputs insulated South India from foreign attacks".

In a way, yes. In what way? I have said above.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Simple_Guy]

26 royal families of Gujarat and Rajasthan felicitate Mr.Narendra Modi

As a part of their tradition the former kings presented sword and turban along with a roll of honour to the Chief Minister. Mr.Modi said that he takes his felicitation as the felicitation of hard work of six crore Gujarati people because of whom the state has achieved such great progress. Due to the diseased mentality of the ruling parties after independence, many facts of India's glorious past have not been put before the world.

Mr. Modi said that hundreds of royal families left their power on the call of Sardar Patel which is appreciable. Unjustly, the historians have mainly described the lavish lifestyle of the royal families omitting the other aspects. In fact, the royal families in India have a rich history that is full of values, ideals and works of welfare, he said. There are many great chapters in our history which have gone unnoticed like the 1400 tribal people who had sacrificed their lives against the atrocities of Britishers and the welfare works done by the kings of Saurashtra, which need to be documented properly, he said.

Shivbhadra Sinh, King of Bhavnagar, said Mr.Modi is like 'Kshatriya' under whose leadership Gujarat has scaled great heights of growth and that people will live safely and religions and culture will bloom under his leadership. from royal families Raghuvirsinhji of Sirohi, Urvashidevi of Devgadhbariya, Darbar Saheb of Dasada Jehergikhan Malik, Saheb M Salbadkhanji Babi of Balasinor, Kshtrasinhji Zala of Limbadi, Yuvraj of Rajkot Madhanasinh, MLA from Devgadhbariya Tusharsnhji, Maharja Lakhtar Prithvirajsinh Zala, Thakur of Lathi Kirtikumar Sinh, Kirtikumar Sinh of Chuda, Thakur of Virpur Pushpendra Sinhji, Patdi's Karnisinhji, Darbar Saheb of Jetpur Mahipalsinhji Vala, Posina's Saheb Somrathsinhji, Sultana Babi Saheb of Balasinor, Rani Saheb of Limbadi Snehla Kumari, Rani Saheb of Bhavnagar Talin Kumari , Rani Saheb of Lathi Ushadeviji among others were present on the occasion.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Sir Pertab Singhji, Maharaja of Idar and Regent of Jodhpur. Pratap Singhji was famed for his administrative capabilities as well as his bravery in the Tirah Campaign of 1889 and in China in 1900. Even at the ripe old age of 70, he volunteered for the front in the First World War.

NPG

 

[Libertarian]

@Singh
What cherrypicking?
And no offense, but I don't think you know what you are talking about. You are erroneously jumping to conclusions based on internal group variation. Sure, there will be outlier samples very high in ASI or very low in ASI- which is why I listed the mean group ASI scores. Either its that error in judgement or that that you're not reading properly.

I honestly don't even know why you are posting North Indian Brahmins, let alone comparing the South Indian Brahmin samples to Jatt Punjabis and Punjabi Arians from Pakistan, when I have made it explicitly clear that they are indeed less ASI and that they do not cluster with South Indian Brahmins.

Let me repeat that again: South Indian Brahmins are higher in ASI than North Indian Brahmins and South Indian Brahmins do not cluster with North Indian Brahmins.

And again, just so you understand me, this is what I had stated earlier:
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:

^Now whether you like it or not, that is a fact of life. If you don't believe me, then go ask Zack himself.

Oh, and that supposed Sindhi Pushtikar Brahmin is actually a Rajasthani Brahmin. And the Kerala Christians are most likely Brahmin converts to Christianity.

 

[Simple_Guy]

@Virendra how does it work that Pratap Singhji was ruler of Idar, which is in Gujarat, and at the same time the regent of Jodhpur which is in Rajasthan???

 

[Simple_Guy]

Okay I found it in Chopasni

In 1896, Maharaj Sir Pratap Singh Ji, as he was then styled, founded a school at Mandore for Rajput Boys of poor agriculture classes, who were fed, clothed and educated at State expenses.

In 1902, Sir Pratap acceded to the throne of Idar State in Gujarat where he stayed till 1911. In 1911 His Highness Maharaja Sardar Singh Ji expired. His Highness Maharaja Pratap Singh Ji of Idar quitted Idar State in favour of his stepson Rajkumar Daulat Singh Ji, and returned back to Jodhpur as Regent (1911-1915).

In 1914, in the presence of His Highness Maharaja Sumer Singh Ji, Maharaj Sir Pratap Singh Ji, Regent, Jodhpur State, and Lady Hardinge, the new elegant and imposing red sandstone building was built in Rajput Style- having a magnificent enormous facade, It was inaugurated by His Excellency Lord Hardinge of Penshurst

In 1918, its Alumini Lance Dafedar Govind Singh, the student of Chopasni School, earned Victoria Cross, the highest British Gallantry award in World War I at the famous Cambari Battle (Epechy-France). The award was published in the London Gazette on 11/01/1918. Lance Dafedar Govind Singh was the first person from Rajputana to have won this, much coveted prestigious award.

The Alumini keeping with the excellent character, culture, tradition, patriotism, training and discipline set and acquired at Chopasni, fought fiercely for the country whenever occasion arose to defend the motherland. Risaldar Govind Singh was awarded victoria cross, Capt. Amar singh second class Indian Order of Merit, Lt. Col. Dungar Singh (Military Cross) Its Alumini rigorously fought in various post-independence wars including Pakistani and China invasions and won various mentions in dispatches and various gallantry awards. Maj. Shaitan Singh was awarded Paramveer Chakra (The Highest Indian Gallantry Award), Maj. Mal Singh (Ashok Chakra), Lt. Col. Megh Singh, Rifle man Rawat Singh (Veer Chakra), Wing Commander Chandan Singh (Vishist Seva Medal, Veer Chakra And Mahaveer Chakra), Brig. Udai Singh (Mahaveer Chakra), Maj. Gen. Kalyan Singh (Vishist Seva Medal), Fl. Lt. Jagmal Singh (Saurya Chakra) Shri Sultan Singh (President Police Madel), Dr. Naryan Singh Manaklao (Padmabhusan) etc.

 

[Libertarian]

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.

Just like Kashmir is 'extreme' North India, Gujarat is to the extreme West of India. To put things into perspective: the eastern most region of Gujarat is still west of Indian Punjab.

And I can display a million sources that have rightfully categorized Gujarat as part of the North West Indian corridor:

The Concise Garland Encyclopedia of World Music - Google Books

The Continuum Companion to Hindu Studies - Google Books

Scarcity and Frontiers: How Economies Have Developed Through Natural ... - Edward Barbier - Google Books

Here are some more sources:
http://books.google.com/books?id=yh...AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=Gujarat NorthWest&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZO...AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=Gujarat NorthWest&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=gW...AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=Gujarat NorthWest&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=12...AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=Gujarat NorthWest&f=false

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.

If Solankis, Chauhans and Gohils are Rajasthanis than given my surname and using your (flawed) logic, I too am a Rajasthani. And so are the many other relatives of mine whom carry Rajput surnames.

But in reality, we consider ourselves fully Gujarati in ethnicity. And you can claim Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas as natives of Andhra Pradesh. I won't stop you.

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.

Who are these Gujaratis then? Can you name them? Can you tell me their Caste background or their surnames? Because at this point- I'm really stumped. If I apply your logic, then I have no idea who is and is not a "real" Gujarati.

Oh and nearly a third of the IVC sites are in Gujarat. The rest are in Pakistan. Which is more proof that Gujarat is closely affiliated with rest of the North West region.

 

[civfanatic]

Babur is a good but not the best and only argument to seal this. First he was an invader who came in for a short period.
Second, he never went down south to really look down deep into Vijaynagar's potency vividly. At best what he got to judge was the information of his spies and hearsay. I would rather not do a no.1 and no.2. I just know that both (Mewar and Vijaynagar) were very strong and that is enough for me.

For an in-depth comparison between the two states you would have to look at several factors, including, but not limited to:

• Military technology
• Economic dynamism, size of cities, and wealth generation
• Trade and access to foreign markets (especially important wrt war horses)
• Effectiveness of political structures

Anyway, this thread is not about comparing Mewar and Vijayanagar. We can leave it as it is if you wish.

Well yes explcitily and deliberately neither the Rajputs tried to protect south India nor vice versa. (No nation state back then)
But implicitly, ofcourse if Rajputs bite down an northwestern invasion and keep resisting - it does stall and stop that invasive power from spilling down south. Same would apply for northerners to a case of southern invasion being held in by Vijaynagar or some other southern Kingdom.
In case of India this resistance had delayed and diluted the invasions spillover for centuries (Arabs, Turks and Mughals included).

Well, you would certainly have a point if Rajputs completely repulsed a foreign invasion, thus totally sparing South Indians from ever having to fight the invaders. But the thing is, this never happened. All the foreign invaders that the Rajputs fought- Arabs, Turks, and Mughals - all fought South Indians as well. Neither the Turks nor Mughals were stopped in their tracks in NW India by Rajputs, and both would eventually launch invasions into South India. At most, the Rajput resistance simply delayed the inevitable invasions of the Deccan and South (as you mentioned), but not so much by "centuries" as decades. The Delhi Sultanate was established by 1206, and Alauddin Khalji mounted the first invasion across the Vindhyas exactly 90 years later, in 1296. In the case of the Mughals, if we take the First Battle of Panipat in 1526 as the beginning of Mughal power in the subcontinent (might be better to use Second Battle of Panipat instead), then it took only 60 years before the first Mughal invasion into the Deccan.

 

[civfanatic]

Just like Kashmir is 'extreme' North India, Gujarat is to the extreme West of India. To put things into perspective: the eastern most region of Gujarat is still west of Indian Punjab.

And I can display a million sources that have rightfully categorized Gujarat as part of the North West Indian corridor:

The Concise Garland Encyclopedia of World Music - Google Books

The Continuum Companion to Hindu Studies - Google Books

Scarcity and Frontiers: How Economies Have Developed Through Natural ... - Edward Barbier - Google Books

Here are some more sources:
A Journey to Be Remembered - Sanjay Patel - Google Books

South Asia: The Indian Subcontinent - Google Books

Reservoir Fisheries of India - V. V. Sugunan - Google Books

Municipalities and Community Participation: A Sourcebook for Capacity Building - Janelle Plummer - Google Books

See, this is why I asked for historians. All of the sources that you provided, except one, is based on post-Independence India. Given India's current borders, I can certainly see why people would consider Gujarat as a part of 'northwest India'. But historically, India extended far more to the northwest. The region of Sindh, which was one of the most important Indian regions and the basis for the name 'India', is entirely north of Gujarat, not to mention Gandhara and Kashmir. This is why historians and others who are historically-minded do not use the term 'northwest India' in reference to Gujarat.

As for the one historical source that you provided, it doesn't actually mention Gujarat as a part of northwest India. It simply says that Gujarat is on the northwest coast of India, which it is; but India's coastline and India's land boundaries are two different things. The author references the real northwest India when he mentions Muslim nomads invading India 'from the northwest'. He is referring to invasions through the Bolan and Khyber passes into the regions of Sindh and Gandhara, which are part of the real northwest India.

If Solankis, Chauhans and Gohils are Rajasthanis than given my surname and using your (flawed) logic, I too am a Rajasthani. And so are the many other relatives of mine whom carry Rajput surnames.

But in reality, we consider ourselves fully Gujarati in ethnicity. And you can claim Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas as natives of Andhra Pradesh. I won't stop you.

I don't know enough about your ancestry to say whether you are originally from Rajasthan or not. But it is clear that there were migrations of warrior clans south from Rajasthan into Gujarat. But that was some 1200-1300 years ago, and anyone who has lived in one place for that long will naturally come to consider himself a "native".

And no, I will not claim Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas as natives of Andhra, because then I will be engaging in the same sort of misleading historical distortions that I criticized the OP for.

Who are these Gujaratis then? Can you name them? Can you tell me their Caste background or their surnames? Because at this point- I'm really stumped. If I apply your logic, then I have no idea who is and is not a "real" Gujarati.

A "Gujarati" is simply anyone who speaks Gujarati and/or lives in the territory of Gujarat. Hell, even Parsis like Sam Manekshaw can be called "Gujaratis".

As for particular communities who likely have indigenous origins: Bhils, Banias, Talpada Kolis, Kunbis, Chamars, etc. There has been intermarriage between people of outside and indigenous origin as well.

 

[TrueSpirit]

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.

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.

Get this to your thick skull that Rajputs successfully defended India for 500 years while your Persian Gods capitulated within no time & got converted en-masse to the religion of their vanquishers.

And after 500 years, when the first Muslim made a decisive inroad/permanent base into India was not any Persian but Ghori who hailed from Ghor. Now, learn some geography & find out where Ghor lies.

Ultimately, the Muslims who conquered India were Central Asians (CIS nation of today)/Turks/Turko-Mongol clans, never the Persians.

Except for Nadir Shah, no Persian imperialist has even set foot on this side of Indus. Abdali was a Afghan, lest you choose to fib.

Unfortunately, everyone viewing this thread has realized that your knowledge of history revers the Persians above everyone else. Covering your trail or defending/side-stepping is useless. You have done a great job is exemplifying your slave-mentality with you perennial hatred for North Indians.

It has been established that your knowledge about North Indians & history is zilch since in your view Rajputs were just "whiny-wannabes" when the world (including military historians) rever their marital tradition & valor. Rajputs are considered to be the epitome of courage, sacrifice & honor throughout India even today. Only a fake delusional like you would contest that.

If you had the slightest iota of exposure to historical facts, you wouldn't be making peurile/ignorant statements like Rajputs were whiny-wannabes.
In fact you are the wannabe-historian here who has nothing to say except empty rhetoric & delusional visions of his Persian utopia It is clear you have never even read about the Rajput history.

Can you prove your statement that Rajputs were just whiny-wannabes & they achieved nothing on par with Vijaynagar ? Prove it & I would gladly prostate before your myopic vision of Persian Supremacy over the world.

Despite all your lame attempts at propaganda, can you deny that Persians were Islamized within the shortest span with minimum resistance & India continues to be a Hindu-majority country ? In fact, Persian resistance, if at all, was the meekest oppsition that any Arabs would have countered anywhere.

Contrast this with Rajput response, who decisively defeated them & threw them back to the other side of Indus. Contrast this with Hindu-Shahi response, regarding which your knowledge is diddly-squat.

Persians were Arab-slaves then, as they are today. Even today, those people are governed by Mullah extremists & no one cares to even visit their shit-hole.

India still trades with Iran and so does Russia and China.

Yes, that was the only saving grace for this outcast nation that a respected nation like India & next-superpower China trades with it. But, except for gas + some oil & Hezbollah, piddling Iran has nothing to offer to the world. Even Indian trade with Iran has already shrunk a great deal & is lessening everyday. India is increasingly sourcing its needs from other nations (which including nations as far as Africa & South America). Iran is simply the cheapest gateway for us to Af-stan. This terrorist nation ruled by extremist Mullahs have nothing to offer except Hezbollah, fatwa ( losers' whine, a Persian trademark).

Iran is an international pariah, not just for the West. It has UN-imposed sanctions on it, heavily endorsed by entire world (save 8-10 nations). Looks like, no one respects your utopian dreamland.

Iran consistently threatens Israel, who is our core ally. It is a non-brainer, what Israel is gonna do with these terrorist nation. Hint: find out what Israel has been doing with all its enemies including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt etc. Iranians are already next candidate for US invasion, & the latter would destroy Iran like they have destroyed Iraq & Af-stan, rule over Iranian losers for a decade & leave for home with gas/oil & re-construction contracts.

All that these terrorists can do is whine & cry. These minnows cannot defend their asses against foreign invasion even today, after 1300 + years. For all their fatwas, they have save themselves even from a nation like Israel. Once a looser, always a looser.

Regarding current geo-polity, do you even know India has always supported US sanctions against Iran ? India does not trusts Iran (Iran has always helped Pakistan against India till 1980 & their nuke co-operation continued till much longer) & India would never allow it to develop nuke. Iranians would have to literally starve themselves if they strive for nuke-weaponization ( that is, if US-Isreal allows these chickens to do it, in the first place).

Iran has no hard power & when it comes to hard power, they are even worse-off than Pakistan & you have the gall to compare Iran with India. Sorry, North India, right ? There is no India for you yet, isn't it ? What a delusional insecure

Every single word I wrote are hard-facts about which everyone is aware, except those are fixated over some Persian-dreamland (land of the defeated, converted, terrorists, minnows & soon-to-be-beggars).

Tip: Do not venture into geopolitics & military-history related discussions; you have no idea & you are not ready yet.

 

[Tolaha]

wow! Where has this thread gone to? I thought of replying to some specific posts addressed to me, but I now no longer want to go back again. Anyway.....regarding Chalukyans and the Solankis:

Even the Chalukya rulers are supposedly of the same stock as the Brahmins.

I really don't want to pick on this point as I don't want to go down that lane!

Only one fifth of Gujarat was ever under the control of the Southern Chalukya Dynasty:

What exactly is a southern Chalukya dynasty?

No it is not. The Solankis of Anahilvada make no mention of any connection with Deccan. These Gujarati warriors have retained their memory/lineage for more than a thousand years, and it is laughable to claim that their memories were erased a few decades before that.

If they had any connection to the Deccan Chalukya they would have broadcasted it in their inscriptions. In all likelihood they had a humble Gujarati Rajput origin. Just like the other clans like Chavda, Chudasama, Jhala, who were simple warriors before they gained the status of rulers in Gujarat.

Also, I researched the family history of the ruling Solankis of Gujarat and I failed to find any legetimate source connecting them with the Chaluklyas of South India. King Mularaja was the founder of the Solanki Dynasty in Gujarat and he did not have South Indian Chaluklya lineage and his rule in Gujarat was independent of the reigining clan in the South:

Nope, I said Solankis claimed themselves as Chalukyans and not that they claimed themselves as South Indian Chalukyans or Deccans! So you claim them to be Chalukyans but not South Indian Chalukyans!? Even the posts that you have used to justify your theory calls themselves as Chalukyans specifically, so I am assuming that you found the word 'south' to be offensive. As for why Solankis they did not claim themselves as residents of saauth India, I reckon "Time Travel" technology may not have become sophisticated enough during those days!

If you disagree, then cite your source that state that Solankis of Gujarat and/or Rajasthan, claim South Indian Chalukya lineage. I will remind you again, if you fail to do so.

However, now I am going to make a post that does make a claim regarding the Chalukyans. Nope, its not regarding the "Gurjars at times, Rajput at some, North Indians at other" Solankis who chose to call themselves as Chalukyans btw but regarding the Chalukya Chalukya themselves (sorry, I dont even know what Chalukya Chalukya means! But if we have solanki chalukyas, then well, you get the point)

6th century - Chalukyas of Badami
Chalukyas brand new startup amidst sparsely populated hills of the Western Ghats region in Malnad region, Karnataka
They call themselves as Chalukyas, in their inscriptions and all their inscriptions are in Kannada
Their realm initially was in a region that was previously a Kadamba stronghold.
Prominent names: Pulakesi I. Prominent victories against: Harshavardhana of Kannauj

7th century - Chalukyan power fluctuates; It raises to a peak during Pulakesi II but goes down with his death against Pallavas in the battlefield, starting a historical enmity;
Prominent names: Pulakesi II, Vikramaditya I, Vijayaditya

8th century - Imperial might of the Chalukyas displayed in the repelling of the Arabs;
Avanijanashraya Pulakesi, a governor of Lata, under Vikramaditya II repels Arab invasions to his territory
Prominent names: Vikramaditya II

Chalukyas of Badami diminish with the rise of Rashtrakutas; King and vassal trade places!
The south eastern peninsula branch of the Chalukyas manage to stay independent;
Chalukyas of Vengi
Prominent names: Vijayaditya II, Bhima I
Important milestone in Telugu literature

10th century - Chalukyas of Kalyani
Chalukyas back in the reckoning, manage to overthrow Rashtrakutas from the south western peninsula
Prominent names: Tailapa II,Vikramaditya VI

11th century - A Vengi Chalukyan prince usurps the Chola throne;
Solankis (of the southern part of the present north western India [to make sure it offends nobody ])


So after all this drama that took place with Chalukyans for about 5 centuries, which has been recorded in thousands of inscriptions/temples/edicts etc, make note of when you start hearing about the Solankis (who referred to themselves as Chalukyans in their inscription). Why would a Gurjar call themselves as a Chalukyan? As for the Chalukyan themselves, it was only the Vengi Chalukyans in the specific period when they were carving an identity separate from that of the Kalyani Chalukyans, around the 10th century, started claiming Ayodhya lineage, as was the trend during those times but never before that! All the Chalukyans before, including the Vengi ones, have left no doubt as to where they come from. We would have to ignore a little more than 5 centuries of evidences and mega tons of stone work, to claim that the Chalukyans were not who they claimed themselves to be.

 

[Tolaha]

Ultimately, the Muslims who conquered India were Central Asians (CIS nation of today)/Turks/Turko-Mongol clans, never the Persians.

Except for Nadir Shah, no Persian imperialist has even set foot on this side of Indus. Abdali was a Afghan, lest you choose to fib.

This looks like a personal battle with @civfanatic but I'll get in anyway! Sorry Sir, but Nadir Shah was not the only one! There were some before and some afterwards!

 

[TrueSpirit]

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.

Iran got completely vanquished & Islamized in no time. It became a Islamic nation in 11 years (everyone either converted, fled, got killed). Native Zoroastrianism got obliterated for eternity. Mullah extremists, de-facto, continue to rule it, even today.

Islam could not get a permanent footland in India till 1192. Nearly 500 years of successful resistance. Even today, India is Hindu-majority country with 85% + Hindu religion.

We are among topmost contenders for UN Security Council permanent seat while Iran is UN-sanctioned nation (sanctions endorsed globally by 90% of nations in the globe). Militarily, a nobody.

Speaks volumes about raw power, influence, stature & respect & enough to distinguish who is worth respecting. Now, go figure.

Your Persian flying carpet can take to only so far. If you want to persist with your delusional Persian di**-measuring contest with Indians, carry on. As far as knowledge of history is concerned, you should be the last person to comment because your half-baked knowledge is a hogwash, a lame put-on that convinces no one.

@Virendra, @Singh, @Tolaha, @Dovah & many others on DFI are the ones who are considered to be neutral posters, as evident from their post. You are just another wannabe, regional-supremacist, self-anointed history scholar who outright prejudice & hate-mongering against Indians is pathetic propaganda, at best (that none bother with).

Pitting one Indian community against each other, disregarding their contributions, insulting the denizens of our nation, is beneath contempt & beyond ridicule

Learn to make peace with reality. Your lame propaganda has no buyers today.

 

[SPIEZ]

As for why Solankis they did not claim themselves as residents of saauth India, I reckon "Time Travel" technology may not have become sophisticated enough during those days!

That was classic

 

[Virendra]

Well, you would certainly have a point if Rajputs completely repulsed a foreign invasion

Invasions don't happen like a one time rally into the territory. There were long ardeous campaigns from both sides .. numerous battles that wore down both the sides, winning and losing alternatively. Forts were lost and snatched over and over again.
If Rajputs weren't around resisting constantly and had surrendered, how hard would it be for Turks to fall down upon south with all their might?
Is the diversion of resources to fight in north not contibuting to the ultimate defeat of Turks down south, followed by north?

At most, the Rajput resistance simply delayed the inevitable invasions of the Deccan and South (as you mentioned), but not so much by "centuries" as decades. The Delhi Sultanate was established by 1206, and Alauddin Khalji mounted the first invasion across the Vindhyas exactly 90 years later, in 1296.

Firstly, your counting begins from when Turks had settled in north permanently; overlooking all the time and effort it took them to make a place under the teeth of Rajput (& other native) resistance.
Secondly, starting a campaign in south doesn't mean one is lord of all the north. They lost Nagaur and Jaunpur Sultanates in north and were getting defeated by Mewar even till 15th century.
I'm not saying that south was fully insulated and didn't even have to fight. My point is - Turks were always troubled up in north (even after reaching south) and that hampered their chances in south. We know that final reversal of Turk power in India had started with their failures in Deccan.
To put it simply - they overstretchedand burnt their candle from both sides.

Now comparing Turks and Mughals; when Rajputs and mandals kept fighting Turks for centuries, the latter were neither the Imperials of north nor they could dominate south. Eventually got packed out.
However, when later many of the Rajputs allied with Mughals (who had humble beginnings), there was not much left to divide away Mughal power in north. Thus they could expand and approach south easily, undistracted, performing a lot better than Turks.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[TrueSpirit]

This looks like a personal battle with @civfanatic but I'll get in anyway! Sorry Sir, but Nadir Shah was not the only one! There were some before and some afterwards!

There is no battle. He is habitual venom-spewer against North Indians & Rajputs so he has been shown his place.

Nadir Shah was the one who really mattered in India. The Turks, CIS nations (Central Asians), Turko-Mongols ruled the roost, never the Persians. Sorry.
After Nadir Shah, they were none. Marahtha & Sikhs (regionally, Jats as well) held the sway. Then, it was the British, all the way. Sorry, again