Lets talk about it.
The term 'Rajput' does not occur in early Sanskrit literature nor do we hear of Rajput clans before the eighth century A.D. This proves that they were a later addition to the population of India. https://twitter.com/TIinExile/status/1305876060886556673

During the troubled times that followed the breakup of the Gupta Empire, many foreign races such as the Huns, the Gurjaras, etc. settled in the Punjab and Rajputana and became Hinduised in course of time.

The upper ranks of these foreigners, whose main occupation was war, came to be known as Rajputs, while the humbler folks ranked low in social status and developed into inferior castes such as Gurjaras, Jats,etc
They were descended from Hinduised Gurjars and other foreign tribes

The division of the same class of people into different social grades was based not on birth but on occupation. Of the Hinduised descendants of the original invaders, those who belonged to ruling classes, with war n govt as their chief business, came to be treated as Kshatriyas.

The common people, on the other hand, took rank in castes of lower degree.

Some of the Rajput clans are descended from low caste native tribes raised to importance

Thus many of the most distinguished Rajput clans such as the Chauhans, the Pariharas, the Pawars (Paramaras), the Solankis (Chalukyas) are descended mainly from foreigners, called Scythians by Tod.

While others are descended from indigenous tribes of inferior castes elevated to the rank of Kshatriyas. The Rashtrakutas of the Deccan, the Rathors of Rajputana, the Chandels of Bundelkhand are examples of the Rajput clans ...

...formed by the promotion of the indigenous tribes of inferior social status. Thus, the huge group of the Rajput clans include people of the most diverse descent.

Rajputs not a race but a group of clans of distinct origin

"From what has been said it is clear that the word Rajput has no reference to race, meaning by that term common descent or blood relationship.

The diverse origin of the Rajputs show that they were descended from distinct racial stocks. "The term denotes a tribe or clan of warlike habits, the members of which claimed aristocratic rank."

It is their war like occupation coupled with their aristocratic rank that gave them a distinctive common feature and made the brahmins recognize them as Kshatriyas."

Proof of foreign (scythian) origin of Rajputs

The Rajputs according to Tod, are of Scythian origin.

Now here is where I took the cliam of Tod.
But you seem to see the clan as one homogenised clan. ....

He includes under the designation of the Scythian, the nomad hordes of foreign tribes who swooped down upon India during fifth and sixth centuries A.D. Thus the term Scythian refers to the Huns and other associated tribes.

To prove the foreign origin of Rajputs. Acc. To smith :-

The Pratihara clan of Kanauj has been proved to be of Gurjara origin

"It is now clearly established that the Huns made their permanent settlements mainly in the Punjab and Rajputana.

The Gurjaras, the most important of the Hun group of tribes established a powerful dynasty in Kanauj. It has now been definitely proved that Bhoja and other kings of the dynasty belonged to the Pratihara clan of the Gurjara tribe.

Hence the famous Pratihara or Paramara clan of Rajputs was certainly descended from the Gurjara stock.

The fact that one of the well known Rajput clans is undoubtedly of Gurjara stock raises a strong presumption that the other clans also are the descendants from the Gurjaras or the allied foreign immigrants.

There are many theories about the origin of the Rajputs. Mahajan summerizes Tod's views. According to Tod, the Rajputs were the descendants of the Sakas, Hunas, Kushanas, Gurajaras, etc., who came to India and settled there. In course of time, they were merged into Hindu society.

They married Indian wives and made India their home. They were admitted into the Hindu castes. The upper ranks of these foreigners formed a separate war-like class and began to call themselves Rajputs while the lower classes began to be known as Jats, Ahirs, etc.

In support of his theory, Tod pointed out certain resemblances between the various settlers and the Rajputs. Those were horse-worship, Asvamedha sacrifice, bards, war chariots, position of women, omens and auguries, love of strong fermented liquor, worship of arms, etc.

Just went through this threas feom where you all first got rattled.
This may also help.
And accept history as history.
Dont become chauvinists. https://twitter.com/Schandillia/status/1254707778330824705?s=19

And as far as your history is concerned, you seem to be a insecure fake propagandist.
And I dont fear the likes of you.
Because no matter how much you try to rewrite history to suit your propagands TRUTH PREVAILS. ‍ https://www.altnews.in/trueindology-truefraudology-debunking-goldmine-fictitious-historical-claims/

PRIMA FACIE FALSE
Rajputra means "King's son"
While RAJPUT is a clan..
Your own screenshot doesn't consider it as a CLAN/Community but "King's son."

Don't mislead people and find better source.
Show me a term "RAJPUT" in early sanskrit before 8C A.D. https://twitter.com/TIinExile/status/1305883268730896384?s=19

And goodnight ‍

And btw, this thread is already a link i posted before the very first time. But you didnt bother to read. So put it up as thread. Now please go through.

And yes , RAJPUTRA is NOT RAJPUT.

There are so many time Hindutva Brahminical ideologies like you countered Dr. Ambedkar on the same.
But you couldn't @TlinExile

And next time just show me ONCE where you find the term RAJPUT.

People like you just wish to go through whatsapp and learn history and mix mythology and history.
It wont help you.

Arey haan, next time dont keep tweeting, deleting or locking.
It doesnt help. Next time STAND FIRM ON YOUR STANCE. DONT GWT RATTLED SO EASILY.

EVEN IF I AM THE MINORITY OF ONE, I SHALL SPEAK THE TRUTH.

Hourse ago I posted the source but you could never debunk it. Still claiming falsehood. https://twitter.com/mynameswatik/status/1305841398579568642?s=19