User:Shinjoya/sandbox

. . . .

For the 1982 film, see Rajput (film).

Shinjoya/sandbox
Chohan Rajputs, Delhi (1868)
Religions	Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism
Languages	Hindi (Haryanvi, Chhattisgarhi, Bundeli), Urdu, Rajasthani (Marwari, Mewari), Bhojpuri, Gujarati, Maithili, Sindhi, Punjabi, Pahari (Dogri)
Region	Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Eastern Punjab, Western Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Sindh

Rajput (from Sanskrit raja-putra, "son of a king") is a large multi-component cluster of castes, kin bodies, and local groups, sharing social status and ideology of genealogical descent originating from the Indian subcontinent. The term Rajput covers various patrilineal clans historically associated with warriorhood: several clans claim Rajput status, although not all claims are universally accepted. According to modern scholars, almost all Rajputs clans originated from peasant or pastoral communities.

The term "Rajput" acquired its present meaning only in the 16th century, although it is also anachronistically used to describe the earlier lineages that emerged in North India from the sixth century onwards. In the 11th century, the term "rajaputra" appeared as a non-hereditary designation for royal officials. Gradually, the Rajputs emerged as a social class comprising people from a variety of ethnic and geographical backgrounds. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the membership of this class became largely hereditary, although new claims to Rajput status continued to be made in the later centuries. Several Rajput-ruled kingdoms played a significant role in many regions of central and northern India until the 20th century.

The Rajput population and the former Rajput states are found in northern, western, central and eastern India as well as southern and eastern Pakistan. These areas include Rajasthan, Haryana, Gujarat, Eastern Punjab, Western Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Sindh.

History

Origins

Hindu Rajput cultivators from Dehra Dhoon from The People of India by Watson and Kaye.

The origin of the Rajputs has been a much-debated topic among historians. Modern historians agree that Rajputs consisted of mixing of various different social groups including Shudras and tribals.

British colonial-era writers characterised them as descendants of the foreign invaders such as the Scythians or the Hunas, and believed that the Agnikula myth was invented to conceal their foreign origin. According to this theory, the Rajputs originated when these invaders were assimilated into the Kshatriya category during the 6th or 7th century, following the collapse of the Gupta Empire. While many of these colonial writers propagated this foreign-origin theory in order to legitimise the colonial rule, the theory was also supported by some Indian scholars, such as D. R. Bhandarkar. Historian C. V. Vaidya, believed the Rajputs to be descendants of the ancient Vedic Aryan Kshatriyas. A third group of historians, which includes Jai Narayan Asopa, theorised that the Rajputs were Brahmins who became rulers.

However, recent research suggests that the Rajputs came from a variety of ethnic and geographical backgrounds as well as from various varnas including Shudras. Nearly all Rajputs clans originated from peasant or pastoral communities.

The root word "rajaputra" (literally "son of a king") first appears as a designation for royal officials in the 11th century Sanskrit inscriptions. According to some scholars, it was reserved for the immediate relatives of a king; others believe that it was used by a larger group of high-ranking men. The derivative word "rajput" meant 'horse soldier', 'trooper', 'headman of a village' or 'subordinate chief' before the 15th century. Individuals with whom the word "rajput" was associated before the 15th century were considered varna–samkara ("mixed caste origin") and inferior to Kshatriya. Over time, the term "Rajput" came to denote a hereditary political status, which was not necessarily very high: the term could denote a wide range of rank-holders, from an actual son of a king to the lowest-ranked landholder.

According to scholars, in medieval times "the political units of India were probably ruled most often by men of very low birth" and this "may be equally applicable for many clans of 'Rajputs' in northern India". Burton Stein explains that this process of allowing rulers, frequently of low social origin, a "clean" rank via social mobility in the Hindu Varna system serves as one of the explanations of the longevity of the unique Indian civilisation.

Gradually, the term Rajput came to denote a social class, which was formed when the various tribal and nomadic groups became landed aristocrats, and transformed into the ruling class. These groups assumed the title "Rajput" as part of their claim to higher social positions and ranks. The early medieval literature suggests that this newly formed Rajput class comprised people from multiple castes. Thus, the Rajput identity is not the result of a shared ancestry. Rather, it emerged when different social groups of medieval India sought to legitimise their newly acquired political power by claiming Kshatriya status. These groups started identifying as Rajput at different times, in different ways. Thus, modern scholars summarise that Rajputs were a "group of open status" since the eighth century, mostly illiterate warriors who claimed to be reincarnates of ancient Indian Kshatriyas – a claim that had no historical basis. Moreover, this unfounded Kshatriya status claim showed a sharp contrast to the classical varna of Kshatriyas as depicted in Hindu literature in which Kshatriyas are depicted as an educated and urbanite clan. Historian Thomas R. Metcalf mentions the opinion of Indian scholar K. M. Panikkar who also considers the famous Rajput dynasties of medieval India to have come from non-Kshatriya castes.

During the era of the Mughal empire, "Hypergamous marriage" with the combination of service in the state army was another way a tribal family could convert to Rajput. This process required a change in tradition, dressing, ending window remarriage, etc. Such marriage of a tribal family with an acknowledged but possibly poor Rajput family would ultimately enable the non-Rajput family to become Rajput. This marriage pattern also supports the fact that Rajput was an "open caste category" available to those who served the Mughals.

Rajput formation continued in the colonial era. Even in the 19th century, anyone from the "village landlord" to the "newly wealthy lower caste Shudra" could employ Brahmins to retrospectively fabricate a genealogy and within a couple of generations they would gain acceptance as Hindu Rajputs. This process would get mirrored by communities in north India. This process of origin of the Rajput community resulted in hypergamy as well as female infanticide that was common in Hindu Rajput clans. Scholars refer to this as "Rajputization", which, like Sanskritization was a mode for upward mobility but it differed from Sanskritization in other attributes like the method of worship, lifestyle, diet, social interaction, rules for women and marriage, etc. German historian Hermann Kulke has coined the term "Secondary Rajputization" for describing the process of members of a tribe trying to re-associate themselves with the former chief of their tribe who had already transformed himself into a Rajput via Rajputization and thus become Rajputs themselves.

Emergence as a community

Rajputs of Central India

Scholarly opinions differ on when the term Rajput acquired hereditary connotations and came to denote a clan-based community.

Writers such as M. S. Naravane and V. P. Malik believe that the term was not used to designate a particular tribe or social group until the 6th century AD, as there is no mention of the term in the historical record as pertaining to a social group prior to that time. According to Barbara N. Ramusack, there are historical evidences to state that people calling themselves Rajput had begun to settle in the Indo-Gangetic plains by the 6th century. Eugenia Vanina states that the first references to Rajput clans were made in 7th-8th century. In his A history of India, Hermann Kulke states:

When Harsha shifted the centre of north Indian history to Kannauj in the midst of the Ganga–Yamuna Doab, the tribes living to the west of this new centre also became more important for the further course of Indian history. They were first and foremost the Rajputs who now emerged into the limelight of history.

Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya writes that the period between 7th and 12th century witnessed gradual rise of a number of new royal-lineages in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh which came to consitute a social-political category known as Rajputs. According to Alain Danielou and Satish Chandra, the Rajputs dominated the political sphere of north and central India between the death of Harsha (7th century) and establishment of Mughal Empire (16th century).

As per Sara R. Farris, in about the 8th century, the Rajputs began to perform the functions that had formerly belonged to the Kshatriya, assuming their social and economic position and substituting them as the new warriors. Sailendra Nath Sen gives the timeline of 8th century onwards for the rise of Rajputs in north and west India. Upinder Singh writes that the use of term Rajput for specific clans or as a collective term for all Rajput clans began by the 12th century. Citing the 1234 CE inscriptions found in the Mahoba fort, Irfan Habib concludes that a Rajput caste had established itself well before the 13th century. Christopher Bayly describes the movement of many small Rajput groups from the west centres of Muslim powers towards the Eastern Gangetic plains from 1200 AD onwards, thereby forming their own chieftaincies.

Historian Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya, based on his analysis of inscriptions (primarily from Rajasthan), believed that by the 12th century, the term "rajaputra" was associated with fortified settlements, kin-based landholding, and other features that later became indicative of the Rajput status. According to Chattopadhyaya, the title acquired "an element of heredity" from c. 1300. A later study by of 11th–14th century inscriptions from western and central India, by Michael B. Bednar, concludes that the designations such as "rajaputra", "thakkura" and "rauta" were not necessarily hereditary during this period.

Sociologists like Sarah Farris and Reinhard Bendix state that the original Kshatriyas in the northwest who existed until Mauryan times in tiny kingdoms were an extremely cultured, educated and intellectual group who were a threat to the intellectual monopoly of the Brahmins. According to Max Weber, ancient texts show they were not subordinate to the Brahmins in religious matters. These Kshatriyas were later undermined not only by the Brahmin priests of the time but were replaced by the emerging community of Rajputs, who were illiterate mercenaries who worked for Kings. Unlike the Kshatriyas, the Rajputs were generally illiterate hence their rise did not present a threat to intellectual monopoly of the Brahmins - and the Rajputs accepted the superiority of the educated Brahmin community.

Rajputs were involved in nomadic pastoralism, animal husbandry and cattle trade until much later than popularly believed. The 17th century chronicles of Munhata Nainsini i.e. Munhata Nainsi ri Khyat and Marwar ra Paraganan ri Vigat discuss disputes between Rajputs pertaining to cattle raids. In addition, Folk deities of the Rajputs - Pabuji, Mallinath, Gogaji and Ramdeo were considered protectors of cattle herding communities. They also imply struggle among Rajputs for domination over cattle and pasturelands. The emergence of Rajput community was the result of a gradual change from mobile pastoral and tribal groups into landed sedentary ones. This necessitated control over mobile resources for agrarian expansion which in turn necessitated kinship structures, martial and marital alliances. Historical processes suggest that the Rajput community has been created from existing communities such as Bhils, Mers, Minas, Gujars, Jats, Raikas as opposed to the colonial ethnographic accounts where these communities claim a Rajput past.

During its formative stages, the Rajput class was quite assimilative and absorbed people from a wide range of lineages. However, by the late 16th century, it had become genealogically rigid, based on the ideas of blood purity. The membership of the Rajput class was now largely inherited rather than acquired through military achievements. A major factor behind this development was the consolidation of the Mughal Empire, whose rulers had great interest in genealogy. As the various Rajput chiefs became Mughal feduatories, they no longer engaged in major conflicts with each other. This decreased the possibility of achieving prestige through military action, and made hereditary prestige more important.

The word "Rajput" thus acquired its present-day meaning in the 16th century. During 16th and 17th centuries, the Rajput rulers and their bards (charans) sought to legitimise the Rajput socio-political status on the basis of descent and kinship. They fabricated genealogies linking the Rajput families to the ancient dynasties, and associated them with myths of origins that established their Kshatriya status and distanced them from their tribal and pastoral origins. This led to the emergence of what Indologist Dirk H. A. Kolff calls the "Rajput Great Tradition", which accepted only hereditary claims to the Rajput identity, and fostered a notion of eliteness and exclusivity. The legendary epic poem Prithviraj Raso, which depicts warriors from several different Rajput clans as associates of Prithviraj Chauhan, fostered a sense of unity among these clans. The text thus contributed to the consolidation of the Rajput identity by offering these clans a shared history.

Despite these developments, migrant soldiers made new claims to the Rajput status until as late as the 19th century. In the 19th century, the colonial administrators of India re-imagined the Rajputs as similar to the Anglo-Saxon knights. They compiled the Rajput genealogies in the process of settling land disputes, surveying castes and tribes, and writing history. These genealogies became the basis of distinguishing between the "genuine" and the "spurious" Rajput clans.

William Rowe, discusses an example of a Shudra caste - the Noniyas (caste of salt makers)- from Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. A large section of this caste that had "become" "Chauhan Rajputs" over three generations in the British Raj era. The more wealthy or advanced Noniyas started by forming the Sri Rajput Pacharni Sabha (Rajput Advancement Society) in 1898 and emulating the Rajput lifestyle. They also started wearing of Sacred thread. Rowe states that at a historic meeting of the caste in 1936, every child in this Noniya section knew about their Rajput heritage. Similarly, Donald Attwood and Baviskar give and example of a caste of shepherds who were formerly Shudras successfully changed their status to Rajput in the Raj era and started wearing the Sacred thread. They are now known as Sagar Rajputs. The scholars consider this example as a case among thousands.

Researchers give examples of the Rajputs of both divisions of present-day Uttarakhand - Garhwal and Kumaon and show how they were formally Shudra or ritually low but had successfully assimilated into Rajput community at different times. These Rajputs of Kumaon had successfully attained Rajput identity during the reign of Chand Rajas, which ended in 1790. Similarly, these Rajputs of Garhwal were shown by Gerald Berreman to have a ritually low status until as late as the 20th century.

Part II

Rajputs of Central India

Scholarly opinions differ on when the term Rajput acquired hereditary connotations and came to denote a clan-based community.

Writers such as M. S. Naravane and V. P. Malik believe that the term was not used to designate a particular tribe or social group until the 6th century AD, as there is no mention of the term in the historical record as pertaining to a social group prior to that time. According to Barbara N. Ramusack, there are historical evidences to state that people calling themselves Rajput had begun to settle in the Indo-Gangetic plains by the 6th century. Historians like Eugenia Vanina, Hermann Kulke, Alain Danielou, Satish Chandra, Sara R. Farris, Sailendra Nath Sen and Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya give the timeline of 7th-8th century for the emergence of Rajputs as a socio-political class. In his A history of India, Hermann Kulke writes:

When Harsha shifted the centre of north Indian history to Kannauj in the midst of the Ganga–Yamuna Doab, the tribes living to the west of this new centre also became more important for the further course of Indian history. They were first and foremost the Rajputs who now emerged into the limelight of history.

Upinder Singh writes that the use of term Rajput for specific clans or as a collective term for all Rajput clans began by the 12th century. Citing the 1234 CE inscriptions found in the Mahoba fort, Irfan Habib concludes that a Rajput caste had established itself well before the 13th century. Christopher Bayly describes the movement of many small Rajput groups from the west centres of Muslim powers towards the Eastern Gangetic plains from 1200 AD onwards, thereby forming their own chieftaincies.

Historian Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya, based on his analysis of inscriptions (primarily from Rajasthan), believed that by the 12th century, the term "rajaputra" was associated with fortified settlements, kin-based landholding, and other features that later became indicative of the Rajput status. According to Chattopadhyaya, the title acquired "an element of heredity" from c. 1300. A later study by of 11th–14th century inscriptions from western and central India, by Michael B. Bednar, concludes that the designations such as "rajaputra", "thakkura" and "rauta" were not necessarily hereditary during this period.

Sociologists like Sarah Farris and Reinhard Bendix state that the original Kshatriyas in the northwest who existed until Mauryan times in tiny kingdoms were an extremely cultured, educated and intellectual group who were a threat to the intellectual monopoly of the Brahmins. According to Max Weber, ancient texts show they were not subordinate to the Brahmins in religious matters. These Kshatriyas were later undermined not only by the Brahmin priests of the time but were replaced by the emerging community of Rajputs, who were illiterate mercenaries who worked for Kings. Unlike the Kshatriyas, the Rajputs were generally illiterate hence their rise did not present a threat to intellectual monopoly of the Brahmins - and the Rajputs accepted the superiority of the educated Brahmin community.

Rajputs were involved in nomadic pastoralism, animal husbandry and cattle trade until much later than popularly believed. The 17th century chronicles of Munhata Nainsini i.e. Munhata Nainsi ri Khyat and Marwar ra Paraganan ri Vigat discuss disputes between Rajputs pertaining to cattle raids. In addition, Folk deities of the Rajputs - Pabuji, Mallinath, Gogaji and Ramdeo were considered protectors of cattle herding communities. They also imply struggle among Rajputs for domination over cattle and pasturelands. The emergence of Rajput community was the result of a gradual change from mobile pastoral and tribal groups into landed sedentary ones. This necessitated control over mobile resources for agrarian expansion which in turn necessitated kinship structures, martial and marital alliances. Historical processes suggest that the Rajput community has been created from existing communities such as Bhils, Mers, Minas, Gujars, Jats, Raikas as opposed to the colonial ethnographic accounts where these communities claim a Rajput past.

During its formative stages, the Rajput class was quite assimilative and absorbed people from a wide range of lineages. However, by the late 16th century, it had become genealogically rigid, based on the ideas of blood purity. The membership of the Rajput class was now largely inherited rather than acquired through military achievements. A major factor behind this development was the consolidation of the Mughal Empire, whose rulers had great interest in genealogy. As the various Rajput chiefs became Mughal feduatories, they no longer engaged in major conflicts with each other. This decreased the possibility of achieving prestige through military action, and made hereditary prestige more important.

The word "Rajput" thus acquired its present-day meaning in the 16th century. During 16th and 17th centuries, the Rajput rulers and their bards (charans) sought to legitimise the Rajput socio-political status on the basis of descent and kinship. They fabricated genealogies linking the Rajput families to the ancient dynasties, and associated them with myths of origins that established their Kshatriya status and distanced them from their tribal and pastoral origins. This led to the emergence of what Indologist Dirk H. A. Kolff calls the "Rajput Great Tradition", which accepted only hereditary claims to the Rajput identity, and fostered a notion of eliteness and exclusivity. The legendary epic poem Prithviraj Raso, which depicts warriors from several different Rajput clans as associates of Prithviraj Chauhan, fostered a sense of unity among these clans. The text thus contributed to the consolidation of the Rajput identity by offering these clans a shared history.

Despite these developments, migrant soldiers made new claims to the Rajput status until as late as the 19th century. In the 19th century, the colonial administrators of India re-imagined the Rajputs as similar to the Anglo-Saxon knights. They compiled the Rajput genealogies in the process of settling land disputes, surveying castes and tribes, and writing history. These genealogies became the basis of distinguishing between the "genuine" and the "spurious" Rajput clans.

William Rowe, discusses an example of a Shudra caste - the Noniyas (caste of salt makers)- from Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. A large section of this caste that had "become" "Chauhan Rajputs" over three generations in the British Raj era. The more wealthy or advanced Noniyas started by forming the Sri Rajput Pacharni Sabha (Rajput Advancement Society) in 1898 and emulating the Rajput lifestyle. They also started wearing of Sacred thread. Rowe states that at a historic meeting of the caste in 1936, every child in this Noniya section knew about their Rajput heritage. Similarly, Donald Attwood and Baviskar give and example of a caste of shepherds who were formerly Shudras successfully changed their status to Rajput in the Raj era and started wearing the Sacred thread. They are now known as Sagar Rajputs. The scholars consider this example as a case among thousands.

Researchers give examples of the Rajputs of both divisions of present-day Uttarakhand - Garhwal and Kumaon and show how they were formally Shudra or ritually low but had successfully assimilated into Rajput community at different times. These Rajputs of Kumaon had successfully attained Rajput identity during the reign of Chand Rajas, which ended in 1790. Similarly, these Rajputs of Garhwal were shown by Gerald Berreman to have a ritually low status until as late as the 20th century.

Part III

Rajputs of Central India

Scholarly opinions differ on when the term Rajput acquired hereditary connotations and came to denote a clan-based community.

Writers such as M. S. Naravane and V. P. Malik believe that the term was not used to designate a particular tribe or social group until the 6th century AD, as there is no mention of the term in the historical record as pertaining to a social group prior to that time. Most historians give the timeline of 6th-8th century for emergence of Rajputs as a new socio-political class. According to Barbara N. Ramusack, there are historical evidences to state that people calling themselves Rajput had begun to settle in the Indo-Gangetic plains by the 6th century. Hermann Kulke writes:

When Harsha shifted the centre of north Indian history to Kannauj in the midst of the Ganga–Yamuna Doab, the tribes living to the west of this new centre also became more important for the further course of Indian history. They were first and foremost the Rajputs who now emerged into the lime-light of history.

10th century Arab historian described Kandahar as a country of Rajputs.

Upinder Singh writes that the use of term Rajput for specific clans or as a collective term for all Rajput clans began by the 12th century. Citing the 1234 CE inscriptions found in the Mahoba fort, Irfan Habib concludes that a Rajput caste had established itself well before the 13th century. Christopher Bayly describes the movement of many small Rajput groups from the west centres of Muslim powers towards the Eastern Gangetic plains from 1200 AD onwards, thereby forming their own chieftaincies.

Historian Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya, based on his analysis of inscriptions (primarily from Rajasthan), believed that by the 12th century, the term "rajaputra" was associated with fortified settlements, kin-based landholding, and other features that later became indicative of the Rajput status. According to Chattopadhyaya, the title acquired "an element of heredity" from c. 1300. A later study by of 11th–14th century inscriptions from western and central India, by Michael B. Bednar, concludes that the designations such as "rajaputra", "thakkura" and "rauta" were not necessarily hereditary during this period.

Sociologists like Sarah Farris and Reinhard Bendix state that the original Kshatriyas in the northwest who existed until Mauryan times in tiny kingdoms were an extremely cultured, educated and intellectual group who were a threat to the intellectual monopoly of the Brahmins. According to Max Weber, ancient texts show they were not subordinate to the Brahmins in religious matters. These Kshatriyas were later undermined not only by the Brahmin priests of the time but were replaced by the emerging community of Rajputs, who were illiterate mercenaries who worked for Kings. Unlike the Kshatriyas, the Rajputs were generally illiterate hence their rise did not present a threat to intellectual monopoly of the Brahmins - and the Rajputs accepted the superiority of the educated Brahmin community.

Rajputs were involved in nomadic pastoralism, animal husbandry and cattle trade until much later than popularly believed. The 17th century chronicles of Munhata Nainsini i.e. Munhata Nainsi ri Khyat and Marwar ra Paraganan ri Vigat discuss disputes between Rajputs pertaining to cattle raids. In addition, Folk deities of the Rajputs - Pabuji, Mallinath, Gogaji and Ramdeo were considered protectors of cattle herding communities. They also imply struggle among Rajputs for domination over cattle and pasturelands. The emergence of Rajput community was the result of a gradual change from mobile pastoral and tribal groups into landed sedentary ones. This necessitated control over mobile resources for agrarian expansion which in turn necessitated kinship structures, martial and marital alliances. Historical processes suggest that the Rajput community has been created from existing communities such as Bhils, Mers, Minas, Gujars, Jats, Raikas as opposed to the colonial ethnographic accounts where these communities claim a Rajput past.

During its formative stages, the Rajput class was quite assimilative and absorbed people from a wide range of lineages. However, by the late 16th century, it had become genealogically rigid, based on the ideas of blood purity. The membership of the Rajput class was now largely inherited rather than acquired through military achievements. A major factor behind this development was the consolidation of the Mughal Empire, whose rulers had great interest in genealogy. As the various Rajput chiefs became Mughal feduatories, they no longer engaged in major conflicts with each other. This decreased the possibility of achieving prestige through military action, and made hereditary prestige more important.

The word "Rajput" thus acquired its present-day meaning in the 16th century. During 16th and 17th centuries, the Rajput rulers and their bards (charans) sought to legitimise the Rajput socio-political status on the basis of descent and kinship. They fabricated genealogies linking the Rajput families to the ancient dynasties, and associated them with myths of origins that established their Kshatriya status and distanced them from their tribal and pastoral origins. This led to the emergence of what Indologist Dirk H. A. Kolff calls the "Rajput Great Tradition", which accepted only hereditary claims to the Rajput identity, and fostered a notion of eliteness and exclusivity. The legendary epic poem Prithviraj Raso, which depicts warriors from several different Rajput clans as associates of Prithviraj Chauhan, fostered a sense of unity among these clans. The text thus contributed to the consolidation of the Rajput identity by offering these clans a shared history.

Despite these developments, migrant soldiers made new claims to the Rajput status until as late as the 19th century. In the 19th century, the colonial administrators of India re-imagined the Rajputs as similar to the Anglo-Saxon knights. They compiled the Rajput genealogies in the process of settling land disputes, surveying castes and tribes, and writing history. These genealogies became the basis of distinguishing between the "genuine" and the "spurious" Rajput clans.

William Rowe, discusses an example of a Shudra caste - the Noniyas (caste of salt makers)- from Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. A large section of this caste that had "become" "Chauhan Rajputs" over three generations in the British Raj era. The more wealthy or advanced Noniyas started by forming the Sri Rajput Pacharni Sabha (Rajput Advancement Society) in 1898 and emulating the Rajput lifestyle. They also started wearing of Sacred thread. Rowe states that at a historic meeting of the caste in 1936, every child in this Noniya section knew about their Rajput heritage. Similarly, Donald Attwood and Baviskar give and example of a caste of shepherds who were formerly Shudras successfully changed their status to Rajput in the Raj era and started wearing the Sacred thread. They are now known as Sagar Rajputs. The scholars consider this example as a case among thousands.

Researchers give examples of the Rajputs of both divisions of present-day Uttarakhand - Garhwal and Kumaon and show how they were formally Shudra or ritually low but had successfully assimilated into Rajput community at different times. These Rajputs of Kumaon had successfully attained Rajput identity during the reign of Chand Rajas, which ended in 1790. Similarly, these Rajputs of Garhwal were shown by Gerald Berreman to have a ritually low status until as late as the 20th century.

Rajput Kingdoms

See also: Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests and List of Rajput dynasties and states

During their centuries-long rule, the Rajputs constructed several palaces. Shown here is the Junagarh Fort in Bikaner, Rajasthan, which was built by the Rathore Rajput rulers

A royal Rajput procession, depicted on a mural at the Mehrangarh Fort in Jodhpur

The Rajput kingdoms were disparate: loyalty to a clan was more important than allegiance to the wider Rajput social grouping, meaning that one clan would fight another. This and the internecine jostling for position that took place when a clan leader (raja) died meant that Rajput politics were fluid and prevented the formation of a coherent Rajput empire.

The first major Rajput kingdom was the Sisodia-ruled kingdom of Mewar. However, the term "Rajput" has also been used as an anachronistic designation for leading martial lineages of 11th and 12th centuries that confronted the Ghaznavid and Ghurid invaders such as the Pratiharas, the Chahamanas (of Shakambhari, Nadol and Jalor), the Tomaras, the Chaulukyas, the Paramaras, the Gahadavalas, and the Chandelas.Although the Rajput identity did not exist at this time, these lineages were classified as aristocratic Rajput clans in the later times.

In the 15th century, the Muslim sultans of Malwa and Gujarat put a joint effort to overcome the Mewar ruler Rana Kumbha but both the sultans were defeated. Subsequently, in 1518 the Rajput Mewar Kingdom under Rana Sanga achieved a major victory over Sultan Ibrahim Lodhi of Delhi Sultanate and afterwards Rana's influence extended up to the striking distance of Pilia Khar in Agra. Accordingly, Rana Sanga came to be the most distinguished indigenous contender for supremacy but was defeated by the Mughal invader Babur at Battle of Khanwa in 1527.

Legendary accounts state that from 1200 CE, many Rajput groups moved eastwards towards the Eastern Gangetic plains forming their own chieftaincies. These minor Rajput kingdoms were dotted all over the Gangetic plains in modern-day Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. During this process, petty clashes occurred with the local population and in some cases, alliances were formed. Among these Rajput chieftaincies were the Bhojpur zamindars and the taluks of Awadh.

The immigration of Rajput clan chiefs into these parts of the Gangetic plains also contributed the agricultural appropriation of previously forested areas, especially in South Bihar. Some have linked this eastwards expansion with the onset of Ghurid invasion in the West.

From as early as the 16th century, Purbiya Rajput soldiers from the eastern regions of Bihar and Awadh, were recruited as mercenaries for Rajputs in the west, particularly in the Malwa region.

Mughal period

Akbar's policy

After the mid-16th century, many Rajput rulers formed close relationships with the Mughal emperors and served them in different capacities. It was due to the support of the Rajputs that Akbar was able to lay the foundations of the Mughal empire in India. Some Rajput nobles gave away their daughters in marriage to Mughal emperors and princes for political motives. For example, Akbar accomplished 40 marriages for himself, his sons and grandsons, out of which 17 were Rajput-Mughal alliances. Akbar's successors as Mughal emperors, his son Jahangir and grandson Shah Jahan had Rajput mothers. The ruling Sisodia Rajput family of Mewar made it a point of honour not to engage in matrimonial relationships with Mughals and thus claimed to stand apart from those Rajput clans who did so. Once Mewar had submitted and alliance of Rajputs reached a measure of stability, matrimonial between leading Rajput states and Mughals became rare. Akbar's intimate involvement with the Rajputs had begun when he returned from a pilgrimage to the Chisti Sufi Shaykh at Sikri, west of Agra, in 1561. Many Rajput princesses were married to Akbar but still Rajput princess were allowed to maintain their religion.

Aurangzeb's policy

Akbar's diplomatic policy regarding the Rajputs was later damaged by the intolerant rules introduced by his great-grandson Aurangzeb. A prominent example of these rules included the re-imposition of Jaziya, which had been abolished by Akbar. However, despite imposition of Jaziya, Aurangzeb's army had a high proportion of Rajput officers in the upper ranks of the imperial army and they were all exempted from paying Jaziya. The Rajputs then revolted against the Mughal empire. Aurangzeb's conflicts with the Rajputs, which commenced in the early 1680s, henceforth became a contributing factor towards the downfall of the Mughal empire.

Maratha period

In the 18th century, the Rajputs came under influence of the Maratha Empire. The Marathas successfully brought most of the Rajputana under their suzerainty. By the late 18th century, the Rajput rulers begin negotiations with the East India Company and by 1818 all the Rajput states had formed an alliance with company against the Marathas.

British colonial period

Mayo College was established by the British government in 1875 at Ajmer, Rajputana to educate Rajput princes and other nobles.

The medieval bardic chronicles (kavya and masnavi) glorified the Rajput past, presenting warriorhood and honour as Rajput ideals. This later became the basis of the British reconstruction of the Rajput history and the nationalist interpretations of Rajputs' struggles with the Muslim invaders. James Tod, a British colonial official, was impressed by the military qualities of the Rajputs but is today considered to have been unusually enamoured of them. Although the group venerate him to this day, he is viewed by many historians since the late nineteenth century as being a not particularly reliable commentator. Jason Freitag, his only significant biographer, has said that Tod is "manifestly biased".

In reference to the role of the Rajput soldiers serving under the British banner, Captain A. H. Bingley wrote:

Rajputs have served in our ranks from Plassey to the present day (1899). They have taken part in almost every campaign undertaken by the Indian armies. Under Forde they defeated the French at Condore. Under Monro at Buxar they routed the forces of the Nawab of Oudh. Under Lake they took part in the brilliant series of victories which destroyed the power of the Marathas.

The Rajput practices of female infanticide and sati (widow immolation) were other matters of concern to the British. It was believed that the Rajputs were the primary adherents to these practices, which the British Raj considered savage and which provided the initial impetus for British ethnographic studies of the subcontinent that eventually manifested itself as a much wider exercise in social engineering.

During the British rule their love for pork, i.e. wild boar, was also well known and the British identified them as a group based on this.

Independent India

On India's independence in 1947, the princely states, including those of the Rajputs, were given three options: join either India or Pakistan, or remain independent. Rajput rulers of the 22 princely states of Rajputana acceded to newly independent India, amalgamated into the new state of Rajasthan in 1949–1950. Initially the maharajas were granted funding from the Privy purse in exchange for their acquiescence, but a series of land reforms over the following decades weakened their power, and their privy purse was cut off during Indira Gandhi's administration under the 1971 Constitution 26th Amendment Act. The estates, treasures, and practices of the old Rajput rulers now form a key part of Rajasthan's tourist trade and cultural memory.

The Rajput Dogra dynasty of Kashmir and Jammu also came to an end in 1947, though title was retained until monarchy was abolished in 1971 by the 26th amendment to the Constitution of India.

There have been several cases of Sati (burning a widow alive) in India from 1943 to 1987. According to an Indian scholar, there are 28 cases since 1947. Although the widows were from several different communities, Rajput widows accounted for 19 cases. The most famous of these cases is of a Rajput woman named Roop Kanwar. 40,000 Rajputs gathered on the street of Jaipur in October 1987 for supporting her Sati. A pamphlet circulated on that day attacked independent and westernised women who opposed a woman's duty of worshipping her husband as demonstrated by the practice of Sati. This incident again affirmed the low status of women in the Rajput community and the leaders of this pro-sati movement gained in political terms.

In North and Central India, the term Rajput has become synonymous to Thakur. The Rajputs, in most of the Indian states are considered to be a Forward caste in India's system of positive discrimination. This means that they have no access to reservations. But they are classified as an Other Backward Class by the National Commission for Backward Classes in the state of Karnataka. In other states too, some Rajputs, as with other agricultural castes, demand reservations in Government jobs.

Subdivisions

Main article: Rajput clans

The term "Rajput" denotes a cluster of castes, clans, and lineages. It is a vaguely-defined term, and there is no universal consensus on which clans make up the Rajput community. In medieval Rajasthan (the historical Rajputana) and its neighbouring areas, the word Rajput came to be restricted to certain specific clans, based on patrilineal descent and intermarriages. On the other hand, the Rajput communities living in the region to the east of Rajasthan had a fluid and inclusive nature. The Rajputs of Rajasthan eventually refused to acknowledge the Rajput identity claimed by their eastern counterparts, such as the Bundelas. The Rajputs claim to be Kshatriyas or descendants of Kshatriyas, but their actual status varies greatly, ranging from princely lineages to common cultivators.

Rajputs follow clan exogamy, ie, they marry outside their respective clan. Due to this, it has become a common tradition for Sodha Hindu Rajputs, based in a border district of Pakistan, to marry from Rajasthan, India.

There are several major subdivisions of Rajputs, known as vansh or vamsha, the step below the super-division jāti These vansh delineate claimed descent from various sources, and the Rajput are generally considered to be divided into three primary vansh: Suryavanshi denotes descent from the solar deity Surya, Chandravanshi (Somavanshi) from the lunar deity Chandra, and Agnivanshi from the fire deity Agni. The Agnivanshi clans include Parmar, Chaulukya (Solanki), Parihar and Chauhan.

Lesser-noted vansh include Udayvanshi, Rajvanshi, and Rishivanshi. The histories of the various vanshs were later recorded in documents known as vamshāavalīis; André Wink counts these among the "status-legitimizing texts".

Beneath the vansh division are smaller and smaller subdivisions: kul, shakh ("branch"), khamp or khanp ("twig"), and nak ("twig tip"). Marriages within a kul are generally disallowed (with some flexibility for kul-mates of different gotra lineages). The kul serves as the primary identity for many of the Rajput clans, and each kul is protected by a family goddess, the kuldevi. Lindsey Harlan notes that in some cases, shakhs have become powerful enough to be functionally kuls in their own right.

Culture and ethos

The Bengal army of the East India Company recruited heavily from upper castes such as Brahmins and Rajputs. However,after the revolt of 1857 by the Bengal sepoys, the British Indian army shifted recruitment to the Punjab.

Martial race

See also: Rajput Regiment

A contingent of the Rajput Regiment of the Indian Army, during the Republic day parade

The Rajputs were designated as a Martial Race in the period of the British Raj. The ostensible reason for this system of classification was the belief that a 'martial race' was typically brave and well-built for fighting, but it was also considered politically subservient, intellectually inferior, lacking the initiative or leadership qualities to command large military formations, lacking nationalist attitude and was recruited from those who were uneducated as they were easier to control.

Rajput lifestyle

The Rajput bride, illustration in The Oriental Annual, or Scenes of India (1835)

Rajputs of Udaipur playing the game of Puchesee.

The Rajputs of Bihar were inventor of martial art form Pari Khanda, which includes heavy use of Swords and Shields.This exercise was later included in the folk dances of Bihar and Jharkhand like that of Chhau dance. On special occasions, a primary chief would break up a meeting of his vassal chiefs with khanda nariyal, the distribution of daggers and coconuts. Another affirmation of the Rajput's reverence for his sword was the Karga Shapna ("adoration of the sword") ritual, performed during the annual Navaratri festival, after which a Rajput is considered "free to indulge his passion for rapine and revenge". The Rajput of Rajasthan also offer a sacrifice of water buffalo or goat to their family Goddess ( Kuldevta) during Navaratri. The ritual requires slaying of the animal with a single stroke. In the past this ritual was considered a rite of passage for young Rajput men.

Rajputs generally have adopted the custom of purdah (seclusion of women).

Rajput women could be incorporated into Mughal Harem and this defined the Mughals as overlords over the Rajput clans. The Sisodia clan of Mewar was an exception as they refused to send their women to the Mughal Harem which resulted in siege and mass suicide at Chittor.

Historically, members from the Rajput ruling clans of Rajasthan have also practised polygamy and also took many women they enslaved as concubines from the battles which they won. During numerous armed conflicts in India, women were taken captives, enslaved and even sold, for example, the capture and selling of Marwar's women by Jaipur's forces in the battle between Jaipur state and Jodhpur state in 1807. The enslaved women were referred to by different terms according to the conditions imposed on them, for example, a "domestic slave" was called davri; a dancer was called a patar; a "senior female slave–retainer in the women's quarters" was called badaran or vadaran; a concubine was called khavasin; and a woman who was "permitted to wear the veil" like Rajput queens was called a pardayat.

The term chakar was used for a person serving their "superior" and chakras contained complete families from specific "occupational groups" like Brahmin women, cooks, nurses, tailors, washer–women. For children born from the "illegitimate union" of Rajputs and their "inferiors", the terms like goli and darogi were used for females and gola and daroga were used for males. The "courtly chronicles" say that women who were perceived to be of "higher social rank" were assigned to the "harems of their conquerors with or without marriage". The chronicles from the Rajput courts have recorded that women from Rajput community had also faced such treatment by the Rajputs from the winning side of a battle. There are also a number of records between the late 16th to mid–19th century of the Rajputs immolating the queens, servants, and slaves of a king upon his death. Ramya Sreenivasan also gives and example of a Jain concubine who went from being a servant to a superior concubine called Paswan.

According to Priyanka Khanna, with Marwar's royal Rajput households, the women who underwent concubinage also included women from the Gujar, Ahir, Jat, Mali, Kayastha, and Darji communities of that region. These castes of Marwar claimed Rajput descent based on the "census data of Marwar, 1861". However, the research by modern scholars on the forms of "slavery and servitude" imposed by ruling clans of Rajasthan's Rajputs between the 16th and early–19th centuries on the captured women faces hurdles because of the "sparse information", "uneven record–keeping", and "biased nature of historical records". Ravana Rajput community of today was one such slave community.

The male children of such unions were identified by their father's names and in some cases as 'dhaibhai'(foster-brothers) and incorporated into the household. Examples are given where they helped their step-brothers in war campaigns. The female children of concubines and slaves married Rajput men in exchange for money or they ended up becoming dancing girls. The scarcity of available brides due to female infanticide led to the kidnapping of low-caste women who were sold for marriage to the higher clan Rajputs. Since these "sales" were genuinely for the purpose of marriage, they were considered legal. The lower clans also faced scarcity of brides in which case they married women such as those from Gujar and Jat communities. Semi nomadic communities also married their daughters to Rajput bridegrooms for money in some cases.

Female infanticide

Female Infanticide was practiced by Rajputs of low ritual status trying upward mobility as well as Rajputs of high ritual status. But there were instances where it was not practiced and instances where the mother tried to save the baby girl's life. According to the officials in the early Raj era, in Etawah(Uttar Pradesh), the Gahlot, Bamungors and Bais would kill their daughters if they were rich but profit from getting them married if they were poor.

The methods used of killing the female baby were drowning, strangulation, poisoning, "Asphyxia by drawing the umbilical cord over the baby's face to prevent respiration". Other ways were to leave the infant to die without food and if she survived the first few hours after birth, she was given poison. A common way to poison the baby during breastfeeding was by applying a preparation of poisonous plants like Datura, Madar or Poppy to the mother's breast.

Social activists in the early nineteenth century tried to stop these practices by quoting Hindu Shastras:

"to kill one woman is equal to one hundred brahmins, to kill one child is equal to one hundred women, while to kill one hundred children is an offence too heinous for comparison".

Infanticide has unintended consequences. The Rajput clans of lower ritual status married their daughters to Rajput men of higher ritual status who had lost females due to infanticide. Thus, the Rajputs of lower ritual status had to remain unmarried or resorted to other practices like marrying widows, levirate marriages(marrying brother's widow) as well as marrying low caste women such as Jats and Gujars or nomads. This resulted in widening the gap between Rajputs of low ritual status and Rajputs of high ritual status.

In the late 19th century, to curb the practice, the act VIII of 1870 was introduced. A magistrate suggested:

"Let every Rajput be thoroughly convinced that he will go to jail for ten years for every infant girl he murders, with as much certainty as he would feel about being hanged if he were to kill her when grown up, and the crime will be stamped out very effectually; but so long as the Government show any hesitation in dealing rigorously with criminals, so long will the Rajpoot think he has chance of impunity and will go on killing girls like before."

However, the practical application of the law faced hurdles. It was difficult to prove culpability as in some cases the Rajput men were employed at a distance although the baby girls could be killed at their connivance. In most cases, Rajput men were imprisoned only for a short time. Between 1888 and 1889, the proportion of girl children rose to 40%. However, the act was abolished in 1912 as punishments were unable to stop infanticide. A historian concludes that "the act, which only scraped the surface of the problem had been unable to civilize or bring about a social change in a cultural world devaluing girl children". In addition to Rajputs, it was observed that Jats and Ahirs also practiced infanticide.

Brideprice or Bridewealth weddings

Allen Fanger, an anthropologist from Kutztown University of Pennsylvania conducted research on certain Rajput groups in a region in Uttar pradesh (now in Uttarkhand) in the late 20th century. He studied the custom of selling their women for marriage among these Rajputs for a "brideprice". "Brideprice" is the price paid for the purchase of a bride by the groom's family to the bride's family(not the Bride herself). Joshi quotes in this context of "brideprice" among these Rajputs: "A woman is a chattel, who is purchased for one of the sons by the father of the family. The nature of the transaction is more the acquisition of a valuable article for the family than a contractual relationship between a man and a woman". Prior to the British rule in 1815, the husband had complete control over the wife and he as well as his heirs could sell her or her children as slaves.

"Bridewealth" is also discussed in north Indian Rajputs of 19th century India by the University of Toronto historian Malavika Kasturi. She states that Rajputs belonging to social groups where their women worked in the fields received Bridewealth from the groom's family. She adds that evidence shows that the assumption made by officials of the time that female infanticide among clans was a result of poverty and inability to pay dowry is incorrect.

Between 1790 and 1815, this sale of wives and widows was taxed and a duty was applied to their export. Fanger writes: "This right to sell a wife, a widow, or her children eventually ceased under the British, but the custom was not completely eliminated. Berremen has reported this kind of "traffic in women" in the nearby district of Garhwal, among the culturally similar Garhwali Rajputs (1963:74-75), and in the 1960s I found this practice still occurring in a village near Pakhura." The Thul-Jat, Rajput males could also take Rajput women as concubines, what was marriage for a Rajput was simply getting a concubine for a Thul-Jat. A Rajput woman sold for "brideprice" was allowed to marry another man as long as the original husband was reimbursed and could also "run off with another man" and legitimize the union with her lover by reimbursing the original husband. However, since the beginning of the 20th century, dowry trends had begun to replace "bridemoney".

These Rajput groups of Uttarkhanda today were formally classified Shudra but had successfully converted to Rajput status during the rule of Chand Rajas (that ended in 1790). Similarly, the Rajputs of Gharwal were originally of low ritual status and did not wear the sacred thread until the 20th century. However, as they had already successfully achieved the Rajput identity earlier, Fanger concludes that Sanskritization does not explain the change in trend from brideprice to dowry . According to him, opportunities to observe orthodox customs brought about this change in custom. Secondly, the contribution of the Rajput woman in agricultural labor decreased due to more male employment hence brideprice was not necessary. Thus brideprice marriages that were traditional and with little attention to any Brahmanical rituals slowly changed to dowry marriages in the 20th century, except for the poorer Rajputs. A Rajput man admitted to Fanger that although he had bought all his three wives he had given his daughter in marriage as "kanyadan" , without accepting money as it would mean he was selling her and added "we do not do this anymore".

Opium and alcohol use

The Indian Rajputs fought several times for the Mughals but needed drugs to enhance their spirit. They would take a double dose of opium before fighting. Muslim soldiers would also take opium. Mughals would give opium to their Rajput soldiers on a regular basis in the 17th century. During the British rule, Opium addiction was considered a serious demoralising vice of the Rajput community. Arabs brought opium to India in the 9th century. The Indian Council of Medical Research on "Pattern and Process of Drug and alcohol use in India" , states that opium gives a person enhanced physical strength and capacity. Studies of K.K.Ganguly, K. Sharma, and Krishnamachari, on opium usage also mention that the Rajputs would use opium for important ceremonies, relief from emotional distress, for increasing longevity and for enhancing sexual pleasure.

Alcoholism is considered a problem in the Rajput community of Rajasthan and hence Rajput women do not like their men drinking alcohol. It was reported in a 1983 study of alcoholism in India that it was customary for Rajput men (not all) in northern India to drink in groups. The women would at times be subjected to domestic violence such as beating after these men returned home from drinking.

Miscellaneous

By the late 19th century, there was a shift of focus among Rajputs from politics to a concern with kinship. Many Rajputs of Rajasthan are nostalgic about their past and keenly conscious of their genealogy, emphasising a Rajput ethos that is martial in spirit, with a fierce pride in lineage and tradition.

Rajput politics

In states such as Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Uttrakhand, Jammu, Himachal Pradesh, and Gujarat, the large populations of Rajputs gives them a decisive role. In 2006, Shri Rajput Karni Sena was formed in Jaipur by community leader Lokendra Singh Kalvi, in order to mobilize Rajput youth. The organisation is often referred as a fringe group due to its involvement in violent activities.

Arts

An 18th-century Rajput painting by the artist Nihâl Chand.

The term Rajput painting refers to works of art created at the Rajput-ruled courts of Rajasthan, Central India, and the Punjab Hills. The term is also used to describe the style of these paintings, distinct from the Mughal painting style.

According to Ananda Coomaraswamy, Rajput painting symbolised the divide between Muslims and Hindus during Mughal rule. The styles of Mughal and Rajput painting are oppositional in character. He characterised Rajput painting as "popular, universal and mystic".

See also

• List of Rajput dynasties and states
• List of Rajput clans of Uttar Pradesh
• Bihari Rajput
• Muslim Rajputs
• List of Rajputs
• List of Hindu Empires and Dynasties
• Rakwal

References

Bibliography

• Alf Hiltebeitel (1999). Rethinking India's Oral and Classical Epics: Draupadi among Rajputs, Muslims, and Dalits. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-34055-5.
• André Wink (1990). Al- Hind: The slave kings and the Islamic conquest. Vol. 1. BRILL. p. 269. ISBN 9789004095090.
• Ayan Shome (2014). Dialogue & Daggers: Notion of Authority and Legitimacy in the Early Delhi Sultanate (1192 C.E. – 1316 C.E.). Vij Books. ISBN 978-93-84318-46-8.
• Barbara N. Ramusack (2004). The Indian Princes and their States. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781139449083.
• Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya (1994). "Origin of the Rajputs: The Political, Economic and Social Processes in Early Medieval Rajasthan". The Making of Early Medieval India. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195634150.
• Bhrigupati Singh (2015). Poverty and the Quest for Life. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-19468-4.
• Catherine B. Asher; Cynthia Talbot (2006). India Before Europe. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80904-7.
• Cynthia Talbot (2015). The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj Cauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107118560.
• David Ludden (1999). An Agrarian History of South Asia. Cambridge University Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-521-36424-9.
• Dirk H. A. Kolff (2002). Naukar, Rajput, and Sepoy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-52305-9.
• Irfan Habib (2002). Essays in Indian History. Anthem Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-1-84331-061-7.
• Karine Schomer (1994). Idea of Rajasthan: Constructions. South Asia Publications. ISBN 978-0-945921-25-7.
• Lindsey Harlan (1992). Religion and Rajput Women: The Ethic of Protection in Contemporary Narratives. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-07339-5.
• Pradeep Barua (2005). The State at War in South Asia. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-1344-9.
• Peter Jackson (2003). The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-54329-3.
• Richard Gabriel Fox (1971). Kin, Clan, Raja, and Rule: Statehinterland Relations in Preindustrial India. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520018075.
• Satish Chandra (1982). Medieval India: Society, the Jagirdari Crisis, and the Village. Macmillan. ISBN 9780333903964.
• Shail Mayaram (2013). Against History, Against State: Counterperspectives from the Margins. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-52951-8.
• Tanuja Kothiyal (2016). Nomadic Narratives: A History of Mobility and Identity in the Great Indian Desert. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107080317.
• Stewart Gordon (2007). The Marathas 1600-1818. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-03316-9.
• Norman Ziegler (1976). David Henige (ed.). "History in Africa (vol.3)". African Studies Association. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Eugenia Vanina (2012). Medieval Indian Mindscapes: Space, Time, Society, Man. Primus Books. ISBN 978-93-80607-19-1.
• Reena Dube; Rashmi Dube Bhatnagar (2012). Female Infanticide in India: A Feminist Cultural History. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-8385-5.
• Lloyd Rudolph (1967). The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-73137-7.

External links

Media related to Rajput people at Wikimedia Commons

Discussion

I am here to appeal my indefinite Topic Ban from caste-related articles which was imposed after discussion in this ANI thread. The thread was started by User: Ratnahastin complaining about User: Ravensfire on 4 June 2021, but it went WP:BOOMERANG on User:Ratnahastin after User:NitinMlk, User:Heba Aisha, User: LukeEmily, User:Chariotrider555 asked admins to topic ban User:Ratnahastin for his alleged policy violations and POV editing. On 17 June 2021, a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban proposal was started by an admin asking users to vote. Before the initiation of this WP:BOOMERANG proposal, I had hardly participated in the discussion. But now, I decided to cast my vote.

User:Ratnahastin is an inexperienced user who had been involved with 3 users ie User:Heba Aisha, User:LukeEmily, User: Chariotrider555 in content disputes. The same 3 users had proposed a topic ban against him. Considering these points, I opposed the proposal, which I suppose, was my democratic right. As soon as I voted against the proposal, the same 3 users began to drag me into the same WP:BOOMERANG proposal which was originally meant for User:Ratnahastin. These 3 users had content disputes with me too, so they found it convenient to get me banned along with User:Ratnahastin. They made the same blame of POV editing against me. I repeatedly asked them to prove how my editing is disruptive and also asked them to produce evidence to support their allegations. But they never produced any edit diff to prove their point. In the mean time, I got into a content dispute with User:Fowler&fowler in Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan on 20 June 2021 here. He had some heated debate with me and 2 other users in which a consensus could not be achieved. As he could not get consensus over his proposals, he began to put false accusations of meat puppetry against me, User:Ratnahastin and User:White Horserider here. Then he made an improperly explained edit reverting my recent edits on Rajput page here, which I suppose was nothing but WP:HOUNDING. Then he went to the then ongoing WP:BOOMARANG proposal on ANI and voted in support of topic ban against me and User: Ratnahastin. I suppose that all the above mentioned activities from User:Fowler&fowler were done in retaliation to the content dispute he had with both of us on Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan.

Now, the WP:BOOMERANG proposal had 12 votes, out of which 11 were in favour of topic ban on User:Ratnahastin with a majority of them asking for a temperory ban of 90 days. As the WP:BOOMERANG proposal was not against me but User:Ratnahastin, only 5 out of 12 people asked for topic ban on me. Out of these 5 people, 4 users (ie LukeEmily, Heba Aisha, Chariotrider555 and Fowler&fowler) had content disputes with me. On 21 June 2021, admin Rosguill closed the ANI giving verdict handing over indefinite topic ban on me and Ratnahastin here with the following remarks: "WP:BOOMERANG, Ratnahastin and Shinjoya are indefinitely topic-banned from editing caste-related topics. While 90-day, indefinite, and "permanent" topic-ban lengths were suggested and not really reconciled in discussion, my assessment is that the arguments for an indefinite ban are stronger. While other bans were suggested as well (an IBAN, and bans on participation at SPI), these suggestions did not gain much support and do not appear to be necessary at this time, although involved editors should be aware that further misuse or disruption at SPI will not be tolerated. Finally, note that while caste-related topics are a DS-topic as part of WP:ARBIND, this action is a normal community sanction and not a DS-sanction."

Now, I will not talk about topic ban on User:Ratnahastin but I would like to appeal topic ban against me on the following grounds :

• Not a single edit diff was presented by any user in the entire thread to prove my edits as disruptive or POV. It seems the concerned admin Rosguill took this decision in a hurry without bothering about the availability of evidences. I still challenge if someone can prove my single edit as POV.

• I am a fairly experienced user with almost 4 years of experience and making over 1200 edits. I was never blocked or topic banned before this. A topic ban on me is like a black mark on my career as an editor.

• The WP:BOOMERANG proposal was never against me but the other user, {{u: Ratnahastin]]. Then how can I be sanctioned by that? Before the WP:BOOMERANG proposal, I was hardly involved in the thread. I was deliberately dragged in the voting by users who had content disputes with me.

• Though, I am aware that WP: Wikipedia is not a democracy, but in practice, the verdict of such proposals is generally decided by the number of votes and only 5 out of 12 votes went against me. And if we subtract those users who had content disputes with me, only 1 out of 7 users voted against me. So, on what basis did the admin decide that a permanent topic ban on me would be appropriate?

• I think the opinion of User:Fowler&fowler was given undue weight as he had asked for an indefinite ban on me. In that Boomerang voting, he presented himself as an experienced editor showing his achievements on Wikipedia. This might have influenced the admin to give more weight to his opinion. But as I mentioned above, his behaviour with me doesn't seem to have come from an experienced user. He violated WP:civility while accusing me of meat puppetry, violated WP:HOUNDING in reverting me on Rajput page here and violated WP:NPOV while making remarks like this and this on Talk: Prithviraj Chauhan.

• Topic banning me from caste-related articles can be a big loss for our encyclopedia as caste-related articles were my main interest. Banning me would only give opportunity to some users to continue with their POV editing. Since a long time, I have been accusing users like Heba Aisha and LukeEmily of POV editing. Its hardly 2 hours that I have been banned and these two users have already begun their work of restoring caste articles to their prefferred versions citing a typical excuse that User: Shinjoya (myself) has been banned. In this edit to Rajput page, User:Heba Aisha has restored the version dated 2 December 2020. Due to this edit of hers, the hard work put in by various editors in last six months goes in vain. These two users have made a joke of Wikipidea. They consider caste-related articles as their own property. In my absence, there would be hardly anyone to look after their POV edits.

So, I humbly request admins to reconsider their decision of banning me on grounds of above mentioned points. Shinjoya (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)