Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:10, 3 May 2015

Battle of Rajasthan

Battle of Rajasthan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The so called Battle of Rajasthan never happened. It is a hoax. It is not mentioned in any academic source. It is not mentioned in any historical Arab or Indian sources. It is entirely made up, probably by Hindutva propaganda artists, who come up with weird theories such as Christianity is a Vedic religion or the Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple (see P. N. Oak). Such fallacious and totally wrong statements and ideas should not be taken seriously.

This article is utter rubbish. The so called "Ummayad General" named Junayd ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Murri who is listed to have been slain in this battle is recorded in this source (last paragraph, page 15) to have "died in Merv", which is all the way in Turkmenistan and nowhere near India."

I have checked many academic databases available to me at my university and there is literally no mention of this battle. I have also checked the internationally recognized JSTOR database and there is not one mention of it.

The majority of the sources that mention this fake-battle are ones created by Hindutva propaganda artists and staunch Hindu-nationalists who want India to be cleansed of non-Hindu religions. There is also a mention on the talk page, comparing it to the Battle of Tours, which is a very bizarre and strange attempt to rewrite history. It also shows that there is a clear agenda.

There is only 1 source that I have come across that was actually a published source, by an author named James Wyndrandt, who in an extremely brief passage makes mention of it. He however does not indicate any sources for his claim. James Wyndrandt is not an academic, he is a journalist who has a variety of diverse interests ranging from Dentistry, to Jets, to Genetics, to Saudi Arabia, etc. He appears to be a potential wannabe Jack of many trades, but master of none. He is definitely not a specialist in South Asian history. Here is his book and the page it is on, . I am guessing Wyndrandt just copied the idea from Hindutva sources, without questioning it. Other than this source, there is literally no source that I have come across. Absolutely no peer-reviewed source. Absolutely no academic source.

Such a remarkable battle, which is claimed to involve 40,000 Hindu forces against 100,000 Ummayad forces (I deleted this statement, however it is found in early versions of the article) should be detailed in the history books in great detail. Battles such as the Battle of Talas have a lot of sources. During this period even many small battles and skirmishes have adequate mention on academic sources. In South Asia there are many sources pertaining to Muhammad bin Qasim's conquest of Sindh. However, there is literally no reliable academic source for this so called 'Battle of Rajasthan'. It is clearly Hindutva propaganda and legend. Xtremedood (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Xtremedood (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. The sources are not reliable as per WP:HISTRS. Considerable cleanup will be needed because the subject is mentioned on several other history pages as seen by the backward links ("what links here"). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep and close I don't see any evidence that how it is a WP:HOAX, nor there is any policy based rationale. Many sources. Although if someone else, who is notable and has disputed this popular battle, they can be mentioned. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. There is evidence that the battle took place, though we may not have the desirable level of referencing. . The fact that the Muslims Arabs were kept to bay for four centuries due to the aftermath of a battle makes it militarily notable. We need more expert input & advice here before we consider deletion. AshLin (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  It is well-known that Gurjara-Pratiharas blocked the Arab expansion into India. But the question is about this particular battle, which seems to be in the realm of myth than history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, as per rationale of nominator. Just at a cursory search, I can find little to no coverage in reliable sources extensively documenting this battle. This is just on the assumption of notability. Even if the battle took place, we do not have enough sources to justify a stand-alone article, hence it appears to fail notability. Two or three sources, that too where the authenticity is contested, is not enough. If this battle (assuming it occurred) took place, it can be appropriately summarised at Islam in India or Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, or any other relevant articles. Mar4d (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Extremely obvious that this battle never took place. The purported scale of the battle is far to huge to have escaped the sights of prominent South Asian history books. I am from the area this battle supposedly took place in and have studied it's history, but I have never even heard of this battle. Muhammad bin Qasim's conquest is verified and well-reported while this invasion, which occurred in around the same era, has absolutely no authoritative accounts. It is also interesting to note that there are no Arab accounts of these confrontations.--Cuparsk | ‏الحسين‎ 08:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: needs recurring historical sources that actually add up to tell the facts. Going to reconsider if provided enough WP:RS (without any synthesis). --lTopGunl (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: It has relevant references and citation, unless and until contradicting citations are provided it will be unfair to delete this article--Suyog 10:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• DELETE. Clearly no such battle happened. No mention in Arab history books or popular Indian history books. Khestwol (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Khestwol: Have you read them all? How come you missed so many of those who have mentioned this battle? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Xtremedood has canvassed those who he believes that they would share same point of view as him. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This should be in the discussion session. 4 opinions from Indians and 1 non-Indian does not constitute diversity of thought. Other users like AshLin also invited others to provide an opinion. Diversity of thought is important for the discussion. It does not constitute canvassing criteria. Xtremedood (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Requires a professional viewpoint. Imho it looks more like a very obscure or minor battle. @Sitush:, @Fowler&fowler:, could you please provide an opinion? AshLin (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, here is one source. Crawford, Peter (16 July 2013). The War of the Three Gods: Romans, Persians and the Rise of Islam. Pen and Sword. p. 216. ISBN 978-1-4738-2865-0. Retrieved 1 May 2015. AshLin (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This book includes a mention of the generalAl Junaid, though no mention of his exploits to the East, ie towards India are discussed. - Levi, Scott Cameron; Sela, Ron (2010). Islamic Central Asia: An Anthology of Historical Sources. Indiana University Press. p. 313. ISBN 0-253-35385-8. Retrieved 1 May 2015. AshLin (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The Crawford source is not academic. It is written in a very sensationalist tone. It also makes absolutely no reference to information pertaining to the battle and how it got information about the battle. I believe that this supposed battle may have slipped into this source (and the Wyndrandt's) source, possibly due to a lack of proper academic referencing and checking and taken from biased Hindu-nationalist sources. As I said, this so called "battle" is mentioned in Hindutva websites, however it is not mentioned in any academic sources I have researched. There is no doubt here that General Junayd existed, however, according to the source in the opening, he "died in Merv" which is in Turkmenistan. Xtremedood (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Okay then. So let's say it's a hoax. But if it's a well-sourced hoax, then there's no more call to delete it than there is to delete the Piltdown Man, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or Cottingley Fairies articles. It should be rewritten to reflect that and reflect NPOV. Nha Trang 17:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Sources of the article do not meet WP:Verifiability. None of the sources are academic. From what I see, the sources are largely published in India. The publishers are non-notable and lack proper checks and balances. A lie told often is still a lie. Unless you can verify this battle ever happened, by legitimate sources, it should not be on Misplaced Pages. There have only been 2 Western sources that indicate this battle ever happened from what we see, and one of them is written in a highly sensationalist tone and does not cite where it got information pertaining to the battle. The other is written by a person who is clearly a non-specialist in this area. Xtremedood (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It is improper to compare this with Piltdown Man, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or Cottingley Fairies, as these are well-known publications that have many sources stating that these are forgeries. I have not come across any significant publication that even lists this as a battle that occurred, rather than refutations of the battle. According to the principles outlined on Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories this article should not be on Misplaced Pages. Mention of this battle is so extremely fringe that it does not warrant being on Misplaced Pages, as there are literally no academic sources mentioning it (that I have come across), as well as there are no significant refutations of the battle (that I have come across). Xtremedood (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Even if a battle of this kind did take place, no self-respecting historian would call it the Battle of Rajasthan naming it after a 20th century political province. Battles are always named after the locations where they happen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• Just a quick statement pertaining to the most recent reference (Book by Desmond Lazaro). As far as what is available for me to see, it refers to paintings and the art (not military) tradition of Rajasthan. The book is called "Materials, methods & symbolism in the pichhvai painting tradition of Rajasthan." It does not make any historical reference to the actual "battle" from what I see. I am however not sure if it is simply a painting referring to Rajasthan (the search term battle of rajastan arabs could really mean anything). It may also refer to Hindu mythology - which offers no basis for an objective study of historical events. More clarification is required pertaining to this source. Certain passages and direct quotes may be helpful. Xtremedood (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Here is the specific mention in a historic source -
  • pg 64 (Entry against year 739), The chronology of India, from the earliest times to the beginning os the sixteenth century by Christian Mabel Rickmers (1899) (from Archive.org) says The Tajikas or Arabs having overrun Sindh, Kachch, Chavotaka, the Maurya and Gurjara kingdoms, seem to have invaded the Nausari district, and to have been defeated by Pulakesin (Nausari grant), AshLin (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Jodhpur Inscription of Pratihara Bauka by RC Mazumdar in Epigrahia Indica Vol 18 contains many references to the Arab invasions. AshLin (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The same event is referred in Vikramaditya II#Conflict_with_Arabs, with page no refs of two Indian textbooks. In the light of all this, your mention that this is the work of Hindutva hoaxists does not hold good. AshLin (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

How do we know if this is a clear reference to the so-called Battle of Rajasthan? Mar4d (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d:, read the Battle of Rajasthan article. These refs corroborate the final defeat of the Arabs by Pulakesi, general of Vikramaditya. AshLin (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have had a look at the article. The sources are poor and limited. There are large swathes of text that are entirely unsourced, with little to no reliable or authoritative academic works cited (see WP:RS) for much of the content. The article fails verification on its chronology and context explaining where, when and how the battle happened, the scale of the battle, troops and casualties (these are basic parameters) and what was the name of the battle (I cannot find anything on the "Battle of Rajasthan"). There are also notability concerns (if this battle had been notable, it should have been covered extensively and reliably in sources). Hence, I am still going to stand with my original position - delete or merge (if proven remotely that this event happened). Mar4d (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There are several issues with your sources. None of those sources support the claim that a Battle of Rajasthan ever occurred. Nobody here is doubting that there were engagements between Arabs and Hindus. However, there is no support for the idea of a Battle of Rajasthan per se. There is no support for the idea that a decisive battle ever occurred of the nature described in the article.

For example, if we look at your first source: pg 64 (Entry against year 739), The chronology of India, from the earliest times to the beginning o the sixteenth century by Christian Mabel Rickmers (1899) The source says this happened in 739 A.D., a full 1-9 years after the date mentioned in the article and other sources. Clearly this is not the Battle of Rajasthan otherwise the author would have said this happened in 730 A.D. or 738 A.D.. The author also uses the word "seem" which does not indicate surety. The details are also very different from the details outlined by the sources referenced in the article. Your first source also mentions that the so called engagement occurred in the 'Nausari district' which is in Gujarat, not Rajasthan. There are several other issues with this source.

Your second source Jodhpur Inscription of Pratihara Bauka by RC Mazumdar in Epigrahia Indica Vol 18 does not contain any reference to a "Battle of Rajasthan." I have not seen a reference to a battle occurring on 730 A.D or 738 A.D. on this source. There are also no details pertaining to the nature of the conflict as described in the article and other non-academic sources used by the article. This source has nothing to do with the so called "Battle of Rajasthan."

Conclusion: Simply choosing random references of Arabs and Hindus fighting does not suffice to justify an article, such as the article titled "Battle of Rajasthan." There was no major decisive battle as described in the article. If there was there would clearly be academic sources. Xtremedood (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Places and transportation)
• AfD debates