era.
I have named it, politics behind “Origins of Rajputs”, although, this is about politics behind theories on origins of the Rajputs.
“Origin of Rajputs” is actually a political exercise by Institutionally dominant castes like Brahmin, Khatri, Kayasth to demean Kshatriyas and a political attempt by Backward Bahubali castes like Jats Gujjars Ahirs to appropriate Kshatriyas.
Ordinary, we kshatriyas never bothered about origins of our clans, regardless whether we are simpleton villagers or educated middle-classes. When identifying ourselves as rajputs, we are more focussed on our kul (Clan or Tribe), its legendary progenitor, our khaap (sub-clan), its founder and ultimately the jagir/homeland of that khaap. [For better insight, read this] . This is corroborated by our inscriptions and records (both vaats and contemporary khyaats), those of our martial rivals (Turks or Mughal dynasty) and even the British-era district gazetteers.
However this never interested the ruling classes - neither early British Orientalists nor the post-independence-era Brahmin-bania rulers. They are fixated with assigning origins to our different clans, although these rulers cannot recount their own family-histories from four centuries. While it is a fact that many Rajput clans have their inscriptions even in 8th, 7th and 6th centuries, and comparatively have more detailed history, than their Brahmin, Jaat, Ahir, Bania, Khatri, Gujjar peers. The lack of adequate information on their origins and their history prior to 5th century, is used as a convenient excuse to impose wild and mostly contradictory theories of origins.
Since most often these theories are promulgated and imposed on rajputs by Opinion-makers fromm above-mentioned competitive groups, it is pertinent to highlight a few points. There are no records of Khatris or their clans prior to 14th century; any mention of Jats prior to the Arab records, any mention of Gujjar caste prior to 12th century . Although Brahmin gotras and Jain gotras find contemporary mention, they predominantly do so in inscriptions by their Kshatriya (Rajput) patrons announcing land-grants or opening trade-centers.
Thus this is more of a political exercise by which privileged & dominant communities,the biggest beneficiaries of Kshatriya States, play anti Kshatriya politics. In fact, through this political exercise they assert their superiority over the very Kshatriya tribes whose subjects they were.
However, while Brahmin-bania intellectuals mostly remain silent on their own origins and at times, casually stretch those to Vedic period, they are often adamant to deny rajput-kshatriya connection and progressively push both the Rajput identity and origin of Rajput clans to Mughal or early modern.
For Rajput tribes, that have inscriptions going back to at least the 4th century AD (check ), they peddle an uncorroborated propaganda that Rajputs are Huns, Brahmins, Shudras made Kshatriyas by Brahmins. However, on Jat Gujjar Ahir, Kurmi, they never even contest their claims of Kshatriyahood. What does it show about the politics of Brahmin-Bania controlled “Public Institutions” and “mainstream media”.
I have named it, politics behind “Origins of Rajputs”, although, this is about politics behind theories on origins of the Rajputs.
Ordinary, we kshatriyas never bothered about origins of our clans, regardless whether we are simpleton villagers or educated middle-classes. When identifying ourselves as rajputs, we are more focussed on our kul (Clan or Tribe), its legendary progenitor, our khaap (sub-clan), its founder and ultimately the jagir/homeland of that khaap. [For better insight, read this] . This is corroborated by our inscriptions and records (both vaats and contemporary khyaats), those of our martial rivals (Turks or Mughal dynasty) and even the British-era district gazetteers.
However this never interested the ruling classes - neither early British Orientalists nor the post-independence-era Brahmin-bania rulers. They are fixated with assigning origins to our different clans, although these rulers cannot recount their own family-histories from four centuries. While it is a fact that many Rajput clans have their inscriptions even in 8th, 7th and 6th centuries, and comparatively have more detailed history, than their Brahmin, Jaat, Ahir, Bania, Khatri, Gujjar peers. The lack of adequate information on their origins and their history prior to 5th century, is used as a convenient excuse to impose wild and mostly contradictory theories of origins.
Since most often these theories are promulgated and imposed on rajputs by Opinion-makers fromm above-mentioned competitive groups, it is pertinent to highlight a few points. There are no records of Khatris or their clans prior to 14th century; any mention of Jats prior to the Arab records, any mention of Gujjar caste prior to . Although Brahmin gotras and Jain gotras find contemporary mention, they predominantly do so in inscriptions by their Kshatriya (Rajput) patrons announcing land-grants or opening trade-centers.
However, while Brahmin-bania intellectuals mostly remain silent on their own origins and at times, casually stretch those to Vedic period, they are often adamant to deny rajput-kshatriya connection and progressively push both the Rajput identity and origin of Rajput clans to Mughal or early modern.
For Rajput tribes, that have inscriptions going back to at least the 4th century AD (check ), they peddle an uncorroborated propaganda that Rajputs are Huns, Brahmins, Shudras made Kshatriyas by Brahmins. However, on Jat Gujjar Ahir, Kurmi, they never even contest their claims of Kshatriyahood. What does it show about the politics of Brahmin-Bania controlled “Public Institutions” and “mainstream media”.
Rajputs as progenies of Brahmins
We are expected to believe that a Iyengar and a Saraswat are closely related but inter-marrying Kshatriya clans are of mixed origins.
Rajputs as descendants of Pastoral & Agrarian castes?
In her latest book Tanuja Kothiyal has tried her utmost best to prove pastoralist origin of Rajputs. This time by deliberate misinterpretation of Pabuji Rathore Saga. What does is: quote Pabuji story and use it to allege that all Rathores were once pastoralists & then became Kings. Her childish glib stands on Pabuji tending to and protecting cattles. However, were all Rathore rajputs Kings & Nobles at any point of time ? No.
Were not most Rathore rajputs humble clan-retainers belonging to different strata, even as Marwar was ruled by a Rathore dynasty? Yes.
Pabuji was a Rathore of Dhandhal branch whose members have still remained humble rural farmers, neither royals nor thikanedars.
There are plenty of Rashtrakut(Rathore) Inscriptions in Hathundi, Dhanop since 10th century. In fact, Dr S Visweswarya even discusses how Dhawal Rashtrakut of Hathundi gave sanctuary to Dharnivarah Parmar of Abu. This is evidence that Rathores or Rashtrakuts had a small principality in Hathundi, which Kothiyal skips as she rushes to foist a conclusion on Rajput people.
Rajputs are a clan based polity. Kinship relations provided the manpower for conquests and the chief was a mere primus inter pares. Thus it’s perfectly plausible for a Rajput of the same clan to be a farmer and king both. Marwar could have Rathores across class spectrum even as it was ruled by a Rathore dynasty.
Hence, the question arises that how does one conclude from Pabuji lore that Rathores have “pastoral origins”? In fact it only shows that Kshatriya tribes engaged in pastoralism & peasantry, even while maintaining clan-loyalty within & kinship relations across other kshatriya clans.
Conclusions
There are certain points of note:. 1. Although academicians from Brahmin, Khatri, Ashraf & nowadays Jat community dominate academia, they never discuss origins of these groups as much 2. While they maintain silence on their own origins, they very confidently impose theories/narratives on Rajputs. 3. While they confidently peddle narratives on our origins, they neither put up contemporary evidence nor are they open to discuss or verify. They undemocratically impose their narratives on us via Big SM handles, Big Media or books published in Big Publishing houses. 4. For 70 years, they projected all Rajputs from Punjab to Bihar as descendants Huns & Scythians - delinking us from Buddhism (a religion by Kshatriyas) despite the existence of Gautam, Mori & Vais/Bais rajputs in the East.
In fact blaming us for violent destruction of Buddhism w/o evidence.
-
However, in past few years, there is a new narrative that puts Rajputs as descendants of Brahmins, Jats, Gujjars, Ahirs, Cheros, etc. Although they never discuss origin of their groups, this new narrative is a silent approval of their antiquity over Rajputs.
-
Furthermore all theories merely employ just blank statements without putting up sufficient contemporary evidence or detailed argument, nowadays both Rightwing & “liberal” elites are pushing this narrative ahead.
It’s time Rajputs began to ask others to provide proofs of their origins. We have epigraphic and literary evidence to support our claims. What do they have, what sparks their superiority?