A Brief History of The Warrior Rajputs

[Multani]

Guys this is family forum, don't use gandhi language.

@Rana4pak
@Multani

shan, I never used gandi language. it was a mistake talking to that racist

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

What does that mean? Did you mean to say Punjab is NOT equal to India? The equation then is Punjab!=India

I meant we are talking about Punjab brahmins here not Indian brahmins.

 

[KingMamba]

Some references to support the same would be helpful. Besides, the Brahmins enjoyed the apex position in Hindu society. They had access to knowledge, and also power if they so chose. Why would they want to convert into a Religion which sent them to it's lower social strata? Unless they were forced to convert, I fail to see the reasoning here.

I think I might have to draw you a picture because you are completely missing what I am saying.

Pre Muslim arrival this was the social system-

1. Brahmin
2. Warrior class
3. Merchant class / traders
4. Unskilled worker class
5. Untouchables

During Muslim Turkic rule this was the standing

1. Muslim Turkics
2. Other Muslim ashrafs
3. Local Muslim converts
4. Non Muslim warriors
5. Non Muslim merchants/ traders
6. Non Muslim others which included the Brahmins who used to be on top

Naturally Brahmins dropped to the bottom because they would not be needed by Muslim rules for the jobs they were doing whereas warriors or merchants were still needed. Hence if you see a Brahmin converting to islam would actually move up in status although he/she would still be beneath the ruling class and other "ashrafs". Naturally this structure is a lot more complex even amongst Muslims themselves then I have drawn out but this was the gist of it if you cannot get the picture I cannot help you.

 

[Multani]

I was wiped out because Buddhists lost debate with Hindus.Secondly there is no much difference bw Hinduism and Buddhism.Thirldy Buddha didnt achieved anything significant,achieving enlightenment was a common thing in Hindus at that time.

That makes no sense. If Budhists lost debates then how come Tibet and Sri Lanka and Burma didnt become hindu? we are talking about physical attacks, on stupas.

The hindu mandir is stolen architecture from the Budhists.

Hindus killed millions of Budhists, and wiped out their population, assimilating others as time passed by. Budhism died in india

 

[Indischer]

I meant we are talking about Punjab brahmins here not Indian brahmins.

Alright. Any reasons why Punjabi Brahmins aren't the same as Brahmins in the rest of India?

 

[Multani]

I meant we are talking about Punjab brahmins here not Indian brahmins.

This thread is actually about the history of Rajputs

 

[Truth Finder]

Buddhism itself came from Hinduism.Majority of the Pakistanis were Hindus you cant deny that.


You are being dishonest so lets leave it here.Your example cannot be equated to Pakistan and Indians but lets leave it here.

I will counter all bs just wait a few hours

 

[KingMamba]

Punjab=India

They had influence in India not punjab, even before Islam.

I was talking in the broader sense in overall Muslim rule while you were singling out Punjab especially. We are both right, during Muslim rule Brahmins dropped to bottom this remained the same in Punjab especially even when it went into Sikh rule.

But wasn't Qaid e Azam a Lohana Rajput?

I am pretty sure he was Gujrati who was born in Sindh though.

 

[Multani]

Alright. Any reasons why Punjabi Brahmins aren't the same as Brahmins in the rest of India?

I think the Punjabi Brahmins were a strong community. The Mohyals are an example. And then Kauls, Khers, Rainas of Rawalpindi

I will counter all bs just wait a few hours

don't worry, we are waiting

 

[jarves]

That makes no sense. If Budhists lost debates then how come Tibet and Sri Lanka and Burma didnt become hindu? we are talking about physical attacks, on stupas.

The hindu mandir is stolen architecture from the Budhists.

Hindus killed millions of Budhists, and wiped out their population, assimilating others as time passed by. Budhism died in india

@INDIC @Tshering22 What you have to say about this??

What??You are trolling or you seriously mean this.

 

[Multani]

I was talking in the broader sense in overall Muslim rule while you were singling out Punjab especially. We are both right, during Muslim rule Brahmins dropped to bottom this remained the same in Punjab especially even when it went into Sikh rule.



I am pretty sure he was Gujrati who was born in Sindh though.

yes, but Gujarati is just a language designation

his biradari was Lohana Rajput, what do you think?

 

[Indischer]

I think I might have to draw you a picture because you are completely missing what I am saying.

Pre Muslim arrival this was the social system-

1. Brahmin
2. Warrior class
3. Merchant class / traders
4. Unskilled worker class
5. Untouchables

During Muslim Turkic rule this was the standing

1. Muslim Turkics
2. Other Muslim ashrafs
3. Local Muslim converts
4. Non Muslim warriors
5. Non Muslim merchants/ traders
6. Non Muslim others which included the Brahmins who used to be on top

Naturally Brahmins dropped to the bottom because they would not be needed by Muslim rules for the jobs they were doing whereas warriors or merchants were still needed. Hence if you see a Brahmin converting to islam would actually move up in status although he/she would still be beneath the ruling class and other "ashrafs". Naturally this structure is a lot more complex even amongst Muslims themselves then I have drawn out but this was the gist of it if you cannot get the picture I cannot help you.

Where you are wrong is that the Brahmins would still be needed by those who professed Hinduism, and the Turkic rulers did not convert everyone to Islam. A few Brahmins may have been forced to convert in pockets where Muslims outnumbered the Hindus overwhelmingly, and their position might have been similar to what you describe. But wherever substantial Hindus resided, the Brahmins had no reason to convert to Islam.

 

[Multani]

@INDIC What you have to say about this??

What??You are trolling or you seriously mean this.

it is a fact. Budhism died in india. But survived all around.

If Budhists all converted to Hinduism in india due to debates, then why not the Budhists outside india?

 

[KingMamba]

I was wiped out because Buddhists lost debate with Hindus.Secondly there is no much difference bw Hinduism and Buddhism.Thirldy Buddha didnt achieved anything significant,achieving enlightenment was a common thing in Hindus at that time.

That is not true it is known Buddhism was pushed out through killings as well. That is Indian blanket statement of saying all faith are dharmic so they are all the same which is not true Buddhism was actually a revolt against Hindu system.

Pusyamitra Sunga is one Hindu ruler who Buddhists say persecuted them.

 

[Multani]

I think I might have to draw you a picture because you are completely missing what I am saying.

Pre Muslim arrival this was the social system-

1. Brahmin
2. Warrior class
3. Merchant class / traders
4. Unskilled worker class
5. Untouchables

During Muslim Turkic rule this was the standing

1. Muslim Turkics
2. Other Muslim ashrafs
3. Local Muslim converts
4. Non Muslim warriors
5. Non Muslim merchants/ traders
6. Non Muslim others which included the Brahmins who used to be on top

Naturally Brahmins dropped to the bottom because they would not be needed by Muslim rules for the jobs they were doing whereas warriors or merchants were still needed. Hence if you see a Brahmin converting to islam would actually move up in status although he/she would still be beneath the ruling class and other "ashrafs". Naturally this structure is a lot more complex even amongst Muslims themselves then I have drawn out but this was the gist of it if you cannot get the picture I cannot help you.

very good post, detailed.