This chhanda (#613) is from the large recension of Raso completed in the early 18th century. The copy it belongs to was edited by Mohanlal Vishnulal Pandya Ji and published by Nāgari Pracharini Sabha. 1/n
The chhanda doesn’t exist in another well-circulated large recension copy edited by Kaviraj Mohan Singh. It doesn’t exist in the smaller recensions either. The less said about large recension’s credibility, the better. 2/n
The line actually says– Brave Someshwara held sway over
Gurjara territory as its King (claiming Chauhan influence in south Rajasthan territories of original Gurjaradesha). It then says that Someshwara’s sword (khagga) cuts the Mālwā King’s head. 3/n
Followed by a wedding with the Delhi Tomara princess. The lines basically conduct a geographic round of mini digvijaya showing Someshwara’s triumph in - Gurjara in the southwest, Mālwā in the southeast, Bhatis in the west, and Delhi in the north. 4/n
However, even the author of Raso hasn’t forgotten who held sway on most of the Gurjara territory. Raso calls the Chaulukya ruler as Chalukka Rai Gujjar Pati (small recension chapter 5 verse 59). So, Chaulukya indicates the lineage & Gujjar the geography even according to Raso.5/n
A better example of how Raso really talks of the lineage of a person would be the following dohā from both the large recension’s Ādi Parva & the small recension’s 2nd chapter. In the clearest terms, it talks of Prithviraj Chauhan’s birth among the 36 Rajput clans.
6/n
सोमेसुर तोंवरि घरि, अनगपाल पुत्तीय।
तिहि गर्भ पृथिराज धरि, दान कुली छत्तीय।।३०
Now let's settle this with a clincher from the Raso itself. A supposedly more archaic and bit acceptable recension of Raso is the short one. 7/n
Chapter 19 of that short recension shows Prithviraj and Chandvardai’s in action at Ghazni after the poet succeeds in convincing Ghori to watch blind Prithviraj’s archery demonstration. 8/n
The verse number 104 in its kavitta says the following of Prithviraj rising for the demonstration after much persuasion from Chandvardai:
इतनो कहत भुवपति चढ़्यो,
कहहि भले रजपूत सो।
This way the short recension also calls Prithviraj a Rajput. 9/n
These threads and the book's chapter were never intended for coaching Gujjar propagandists, for they're on a deliberate path beyond redemption. These are meant for others who can still call a spade a spade. I hope they will have better clarity. 🙏 10/n
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Chucking the acquisition of means of self defence, is a symptom of willful abdication of one's own fundamental right to life, liberty and honour. The only ones to actively abet that are lazy, short-sighted societies.
Such head-in-sand societies want to falsely believe that they can somehow circumvent violence forever & everywhere. Guess what, you can't. There is literally no way to completely prevent or circumvent violence ever. Neither in wildlife nor in human societies.
The issue runs deeper than just Arms acts or availability of weapons. It is of an escapist human psyche that keeps yearning for an excuse to outsource the ab initio responsibility of self protection. It has never worked and never will. You have to accept it,
सप्तम सर्ग श्लोक 50 में गुर्जर शब्द कहीं है ही नही।
दशम सर्ग श्लोक 50। जहां नाडोल के दुर्ग को गुर्जरों का दुर्ग बताया गया है वो स्थानसूचक प्रयोग है। कैसे?
वो ऐसे कि जिन पर ग्रंथ लिखा जा रहा है वो अजमेर का राजपरिवार और जिस नाडोल की बात हो रही है वो वहां का राजपरिवार दोनों ही..1/n
चौहान वंश से थे। अब दो लोग जो एक ही वंश के हैं। उनमें से एक पक्ष यदि दूसरे को संबोधित करेगा तो शब्द ऐसा प्रयोग में आएगा जिससे दोनों पक्षों में अंतर स्पष्ट हो।
आप किसी को बुलाते समय अरे इंसान या अरे भारतीय तो नही कहेंगे ना। कुछ ऐसा जिससे आपके और सामने वाले में अंतर स्पष्ट हो।2/n
यहां दोनों पक्ष चौहान है। यदि हम मान लें कि चौहान जाति/प्रजाति से गुजर थे तो फिर गुर्जर शब्द दोनों पर लागू हो जाता है व उसकी अंतर करने की क्षमता चली जाती है। यहां गुर्जर शब्द का प्रयोग तभी संभव है जब वो दोनों चौहान पक्षों में अंतर पैदा करता हो और वो करता है, स्थानसूचक होकर। 3/n
I recently came across a random tweet (below).
Nothing fishy on the face, went through the video given in it. It barely had anything to relate with this tweet. So, will leave the tweet here & take you through what a so called scholar (Manoshi Sinha) has said in the video. 1/n
It’s a speech on ‘Victories of Indian Warriors against Islamic Invasion: From 8th to 18th Century’ by Manoshi Sinha. Numerous things were said in the speech. We’ll go through most of them one by one in paraphrased manner.
Manoshi: Most of the Kings and Fighters lost interest in fighting after non-violence gained momentum. The Kings gave little importance to maintaining robust army & upgrading military infrastructure.
Response: Which period? No mention. A generalized & vague statement.
If people would only read what comes on prominent bookstores or gets the most popularity then surely the best books will skip them. That's like saying- "Put some 5-6 dishes on my table. Even if all are shit, I will feel good in choosing & eating the least stinking one" 1/n
Because only the big entities and ones coming from the left eco system dominated academia get the push requeired to attain that level of traction. This is why good books of Rajput history aren't on the most popular publications or stores. 2/n
I know of many good historians who have written from Rajasthan in recent years. But their language is Hindi and reach is limited. Coming to writing more books. Let me inform that I'm yet to recover the cost incurred in getting mine published. 3/n
14:50 Arif said Mughals built Tajmahal when Deccan had famine. Arvind Saharan:
मुग़ल दौर में मेरे क्षेत्र राजस्थान में लोगों को पानी की बूंद नहीं थी। पर हज़ारों किले बनाने वाले हमारे राजाओं ने लोगों का खून चूसा और "इनके किलों" के नीचे लाखों लोगों की लाशें दफन है(slow claps) 1/n
ना तो @_ArvindSaharan ने जवाब देने की हिम्मत दिखाई, ना ही @Dhani_Marwar जी व अन्य के नीचे दिए उदाहरणों के बाद मेरे और कुछ कहने की आवश्यकता है। अच्छा ही हुआ कि इनके मुख से आवरण हट गया और इनकी मानसिकता सबको दिखाई दे गई।
Cherry picked a convenient spot in the timeline. Right after Aurangzeb, Rajputs didn't March into Delhi, instead Mughals were abolishing Rajput states into direct administration before marching into Deccan.
Why? Same reason why Marathas opted to collect taxes for Mughal emperor instead of dethroning him- Nobody wanted to trigger the Ummah of entire Indian subcontinent, without a pan Indian political unity among Hindus. Rajput states of 18th century no longer had the manpower &...
...resources to wage campaigns against the whole Indian subcontinent's ummah. That's enough on power balance. When words of wisdom failed on new Emperor, Rajputs raised their swords against Mughals starting 1708 AD and beat them out of all their garrisons in Rajputana.