Talk:Kingdom of Mewar

Dynastic information misplaced

This is a page about Udaipur State under British rule only, not an article on the state of Mewar in general. The dynastic information about rulers of Mewar outside the period of Brith rule appears to be misplaced. There is a separate page for Mewar state in general. Deccantrap (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Nearly half of the material in the history section doesn't belong here. I'll let other editors comment before removing the irrelevant content. utcursch | talk 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Said information is substantially impeding use of the page. Since a reasonable amount of time has passed since this discussion opened, suggest the irrelevant material be deleted.Deccantrap (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Deccantrap: Be bold and make the changes yourself, as no one has objected to the above proposal. If anyone has a problem with your changes, they can discuss it on the talk page. utcursch | talk 16:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I've cut it back substantially. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

'Princely state' versus 'Former state'

This page categorizes Udaipur/Mewar State as a princely state, which means a native state vassal to the British Raj. Consistent with this definition, the establishment date of the state is listed as 1818. However, it can hardly be debated that the Udaipur/Mewar State existed before the time it came into vassal status. What does the community feel about classifying Udaipur State as a former state instead of princely state?

The above suggestion will allow the vassal period of Udaipur State to be a subset of the time of its existence as a sovereign state. The alternative would be to create another page to address the pre-vassalage state. This alternative would be cumbersome and ineffective.

Please do comment. Deccantrap (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Maybe we can mention that it was "an independent state from xth century to xyz, a vassal state to the Mughal Empire in the yth century, and a princely state of the British India from 1818 to 1947". If the article grows too big, it can be split into multiple articles. utcursch | talk 14:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Will make some edits in the near future and we will see how it looks. Deccantrap (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Spin off dynastic information?

Suggest that the list of Mewar State rulers be spun off as a separate page. See, e.g., List of English monarchs. If no objections are voiced, I will make it a project sometime in the distant future.Deccantrap (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bhagwat Singh Mewar with Maud Adams.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Udaipur State → Kingdom of Mewar – A few days ago Sisodias of Mewar was merged here. That merge and expansion of the page has changed what the page is about. It is now about the Kingdom in its historical context and not just the state under Maratha and British. Because historically speaking, there was no state before the british arrived, this must be a kingdom. Also Mewar is a Common Name to include in the title and not Udaipur. See WP:COMMONNAME >>> Extorc.talk 08:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Abhishek0831996, @Packer&Tracker, @Sajaypal007. active editors in Rajputana history. >>> Extorc.talk 08:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support Clearly common name as illustrated by a number of sources.[1][2][3] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support Udaipur state was the name of princely state under British Government, while the kingdom and its history stretches long before that, and thats what included on the page as well. Kingdom of Mewar will be quite appropriate, specially if it is also WP:COMMONNAME. Sajaypal007 (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support I concur with Extorc here; Udaipur state is a name used by Britts very recently in 18th century or therebouts. History of this house atleast dates back to eighth century and from there on an unbreakable lineage of ruler ruled the area.

Also; Shouldn't we merge separate article of Guhila and Sisodia dynasty into one here as this is the same family and have separate article for Udaipur state during British period alone ?? At last, House of Mewar is also used by multiple scholars for this kingdom @Extorc, Sajaypal007, and Abhishek0831996: Please make a comment on my suggestion as well. Packer&Tracker (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the article about the Guhila dynasty should exist separately because after Hammir Singh's return in 1326, the Power and control totally changed. While Guhilas were mostly vassals and feudatories throughout their rule, Sisodias were the most powerful dynasties in India in the early 16th century.
Also, when you say "article on Sisodia Dynasty", if you mean the article Sisodia, then, yes, I will be WP:BOLD merging Sisodia here.
Thirdly, I instinctually prefer my version of Kingdom of Mewar over your suggestion of House of Mewar. Although, It could be argued that all notability exists because of the house and not because of the Kingdom. Consider my vote for both.

@Packer&Tracker >>> Extorc.talk 11:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

House of Mewar could be a good name only if it wasn't used for specifically describing the genealogy of this kingdom. There seem to be multiple "House of Mewar" that's why it is sometimes more specifically called "Sisodia House of Mewar". That's why the proposed name "Kingdom of Mewar" is better. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The Sisodias were Guhilas but Guhila dynasty is notable enough to have a spearate article of its own, if you are considering for such merge then do open separate discussion but in my honest opinion, it will be best to keep the pages separate. Sajaypal007 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, separate discussion would be needed for that merge. >>> Extorc.talk 19:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I believe the argument that "it was kingdom before the British because the British were the first to call it a 'state'" glosses over some linguistic subtleties. In the Jahangirnama (written aroung 1620), the various native Indian states/kingdoms were called "riyasat" which can roughly be translated as a state. Further, in Mewari writing, the entity is denoted as a "rajya". In modern Mewari as well as in Hindi, "rajya" is formally translated as "state" (and informally as "government"). [I apologize that when I commented previously, I wiped out the talk page. It was inadvertent.]

The above is a general argument against the proposal. More specifically to Mewar, the Mewar rulers who are called Ranas did not refer themselves, nor were referred by others, as 'king'. The notion being that the Ranas were stewards of a realm ruled by Eklingnath (the godly figurehead). 'Kingdom of Mewar' would be an extremely rare usage.Deccantrap (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

A very simple question, How do you think sources see Mewar in a political sense. Was it a Principality being ruled by an equivalent of a prince? A Protectorate where the Ranas protect Eklingji's territory?
As shown by @Abhishek0831996, Sources do refer to it, for all intents and purposes, as a Kingdom.
A Large proportion of Indian Hindu Kingdoms/Empires patronized some sect and assumed similar attitudes towards deities like the Mewaris did. Does that make them something other than kingdoms and Empires? >>> Extorc.talk 19:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That is a great question, how do sources see Mewar in a political sense? Yes Abhishek0831996 did show that some sources refer to it as Mewar. But an equal - and likely more - number of sources show it being referred to as state even in medieval (pre-British) area. See for example [4][5][6][7]. An important modern source on Mewar is the book Human Geography of Mewar [8] the text of which is not available online but I quote from page 55 of the copy on my desk: "...the Guhilot dynasty originally migrated and established the state of Mewar...". To again emphasize, each of these sources refer to the 'state of Mewar' or 'Mewar State' when writing of that administrative realm in the the medieval era (i.e., before the British showed up). Another empirical piece of evidence is that 'Mewar state' pulls up 180 hits on Google Scholar, while 'Mewar kingdom' gets 59 hits and 'Kingdom of Mewar' gets 162 hits.

I do wonder if some of the support for this proposal is prompted by the current use of the word 'state' in some democracies such as India, Australia and US to denote administrative subdivisions of a sovereign country. In the context of Mewar, I do not believe 'state' should be interpreted to mean that. Nor did the British intend it as that; like many other places in India, Mewar was never under direct British administrative rule, with Mewar retaining its status as a sovereign state that was a tribute-payer to the empire.

Finally, I think the question of state versus kingdom should not taken up in isolation as an issue of Mewar. The following pages all use 'state' to denote the administrative realm but the material therein is not limited to the British-era entity: Jodhpur State, Jaipur State etc.Deccantrap (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Deccantrap Out of the 4 sources provided, 2 clearly are from 2002 and 2016 resp. and cant be called medieval (pre-British) as you do.
I do wonder if some of the support - And Yes! State does conflict with the modern definition of State as in a nation-state but Kingdom provides a seamless distinction. Even if I would concede that State and Kingdom are both used equally in sources,(for making a point), still Kingdom is a good disambiguation of State away from nation-state. Also feel free to ping to get my attention and to speed up discussion. >>> Extorc.talk 19:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A Large proportion of ... kingdoms and Empires?Thanks @Extorc. I want to withdraw that part of the argument. My opinion was primarily supported by the generic factors that I have canvassed in further details above. I think my specific point about Mewar is taking the discussion away from my main argument and I apologize for bringing it up.Deccantrap (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History of Rajasthan by Rima Hooja

The pdf of History of Rajasthan by Rima Hooja that I'm using doesn't have page numbers labeled. I will add quotes from the book in my citations, kindly add page numbers if you are aware of them. Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 07:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)