Rajput means "Rajaputra".Rama was called "Rajaputra" in Ramayana.Your basic timeline is WRONG,Scythians DID NOT invade in 5th century. 1st Scythian king Maues was ruling parts of India in 1st century BC. You don't know the difference b/w Hunas & Scythians.
WRONG! Even Rama was called "Rajaputra" in Ramayana
Your basic timeline is WRONG. Scythians DID NOT invade in 5th century. 1st Scythian king Maues was ruling parts of India in 1st century BC. At least learn the basic difference b/w Hunas & Scythians
(/3)
Your basic timeline is WRONG. Scythians DID NOT invade in 5th century. 1st Scythian king Maues was ruling parts of India in 1st century BC. At least learn the basic difference b/w Hunas & Scythians
(/3)
A textbook eg. of how they spread falsehood in the name of history. She claims Rajputs are of foreign Scythian origin. Cites the opinion of a British colonial annalist "James Tod". But this person hasn't even read the intro of his book as I will show below
Don't celebrate yet. I deleted the tweet only because I realized a lone tweet is not enough for your ilk. Coming up with a thread to expose degeηeπate frαμds like you. I will take you to the cleaηeπs. Just wait
(/5)
(/5)
In the very introduction of James Tod's book 'Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan', it is mentioned that "There is NO EVIDENCE for Scythian origin of Rajputs" "And Tod tries to make up for the lack of evidence by making unreasonable identifications" So much for 'evidence'
(/6)
(/6)
WRONG! The term 'Rajput'(in its Sanskrit form "Rajaputra") occurs in ancient Skt literature of India starting from Ramayana & Mahabharata. It was a term used for Kshatriyas.For instance Ramopakhyana of Mahabharata refers to Rama & Lakshmana as "Rajaputras"
RT @CigarVegan: The book she's citing itself debunks her own lie. Thus conveniently discards what introduction of the book says. Aage se thoda kaat lene ki aadat hai inko. If u knw what i mean.🙈 They think we still live in 1800s and can easily be fooled due to lack of sources.
James Tod was a British colonial annalist. He tried to convince Rajputs that Rajputs and British shared a common origin. He proclaimed that both Rajputs and British were descended from Scythians For Tod, Rajputs were ancient British. He even tried to convert house of Mewar
(/9)
(/9)
Entire thread is lifted WORD TO WORD from an article titled "Rajput Period was Dark age of India". The article is also not linked anywhere in the current thread. This is the textbook definition of plagiarism
(/10)
(/10)
Dum-Dum, You're UTTERLY WRONG! "Rajaputra" did NOT just mean "King's son". Rajaputra was a designation for a KSHATRIYA. In many cases, even ministers, who were NOT King's sons,were designated as "Rajaputra" in Ancient India.Archaeological evidence abounds!
Take for instance the early 7th century Sanga inscription of Nepal. In this inscription, the chief minister Vikramasena was designated as "Rajaputra". He was NOT the king's son. He was not even related to King Amsuvarman. This debunks LIE that Rajaputra only meant "king's son"
Only a F00L of highest order will share an article & get even the author's name wrong! That article was NOT written by Ambedkar, but a Chπistian eυaηgεlist "scholar' named Dr.K.Jamanadas. It is full of nonsense that I shall debunk. Sit down & learn, troII!
Again, the word 'Rajaputra" occurs in the Khura stone inscription of Huna king Toramana (Punjab). In this inscription, Toramana refers to others as Rajputs. If Rajputs were Huna invders, why did Toramana not call call himself "Rajaputra". This inscription debunks the myth.
(/15)
(/15)
WRONG! In that snippet Ambedkar DOES NOT say Rajputs were foreigners, but "one view is that they were foreigners".The author cleverly crops what Ambedkar says."Rajputs were foreigners" is the view of Evangelist author. You FALSELY attributed it to Ambedkar
Educate yourself. LEARN what research means. Writing RESEARCH in caps doesn't make it a researched article. It is not published in any academic/peer reviewed journal. This cheap 3rd rate article makes even semantic/syntactical bloopers.What on earth is 'MμsΙim-MμsΙim' coηflict?
RT @me_ganesh14:
@TIinExile has exposed you. If at all you wanted to covey said article was compilation of Ambedkar view on Rajput then it should have been
"Read research Article by Dr K Jamanadas on Ambedkar view on Rajput."
@TIinExile has exposed you. If at all you wanted to covey said article was compilation of Ambedkar view on Rajput then it should have been
"Read research Article by Dr K Jamanadas on Ambedkar view on Rajput."
RT: Pre-8th cent CE? Here, a Pālī text from 3rd -1st c BC:
राजपुत्तो is used in खुद्दकनिकाय, सुत्तपिटक as Kshatriya & not “king’s son”
न ब्राह्मणो नोम्हि न राजपुत्तो,
न वेस्सायनो उद कोचि नोम्हि।
गोत्तं परिञ्ञाय पुथुज्जनानं,
अकिञ्चनो मन्त चरामि लोके॥
राजपुत्तो is used in खुद्दकनिकाय, सुत्तपिटक as Kshatriya & not “king’s son”
न ब्राह्मणो नोम्हि न राजपुत्तो,
न वेस्सायनो उद कोचि नोम्हि।
गोत्तं परिञ्ञाय पुथुज्जनानं,
अकिञ्चनो मन्त चरामि लोके॥
Loading suggestions...