Notes on the Origin of the Rajputs
In the realm of Indian historiography, the writings on the origin of the Rajputs reflect an extreme polarity of opinions. Some attempts relegate the Rajputs to foreign origin, while others claim to exhort their pure ksatriya lineage. This latter opinion, glorifying the indigenous origin of the Rajputs, found firm backing during the heyday of nationalist historiography. The glory and glorification of the Rajputs, as seen in the works of historians like C.V. Vaidya, came to be seen in the same patriotic light of bravery, military adeptness and chivalrous social existence—all extremely desirable traits in the nationalistic ferment of the early 20th century. Says Vaidya: “The Rajputs who came to the front and who by their heroism diffuse such glory on the period of Medieval Indian history cannot but have been the descendents of Vedic Aryans. None but Vedic Aryans could have fought so valiantly in defence of the ancestral faith.” For D. Sharma, the Rajputs rose to prominence in the process of resisting foreign invasions and that they “shouldered willingly the ksatriyas’ duty of fighting for the land as well as its people and culture.”
According to BD Chattopadhyay (henceforth BDC), recent political narratives of Rajput history tend to “dynasticize” the reconstruction of their early history. Items, primarily genealogies are used to rationalise uncertain dates and lineages, into dynastic superstructures, thereby conferring both temporal and genetic relationships on them, where data provides neither; short, incomplete genealogies are concatenated, grafted and hybridized into mega structures—which are bigger, and falsely greater than their constituent parts. As a result, the study of the Rajputs has been undertaken on an isolationist scale, their origin in the early medieval period not examined as a process with parallels or echoes outside the region. Factors like the formation of numerous new castes, emergence of dynasties seeking ksatriya status, accent on locality in social relations etc. have been left relatively unexamined as a result of this isolationism.
One way to define the term ‘Rajput’, a difficult exercise in distinguishing Rajputs from non-Rajputs, is by analysing references made to rajaputras in inscriptions and literature. From these references, one concludes that they represented a ‘mixed caste’ and ‘constituted a fairly large section of petty chiefs holding estates’. However, the reference to certain clans—Cahamanas or Pratiharas—occurs much more regularly, possibly due to their political dominance.
There are primarily two processes that underline the emergence of the Rajputs in early medieval records—the colonisation of new areas, and the mobility to ksatriya status as seen in the inclusion of tribal or alien groups into the list of Rajput clans.
Firstly, a proliferation of settlements through an expansion of agrarian economy is attested to by the appearance of several new place names in distributed archaeological remains. This trend, seen in several inscriptions of western and central India, reveals two important aspects of a process. First, the territorial expansion of what came to be known as Rajput power was achieved at the expense of erstwhile tribal settlements, as seen in the cases of the Guhilas and Cahamanas. Though the Guhila settlements have been recorded in Rajasthan as early as the 7th Century, records of the Nagda-Ahar-Guhilas inscriptions trace their movement from Gujarat slightly later. There is also voluminous bardic material which suggests that the Guhila kingdoms in south Rajasthan succeeded the earlier tribal chiefdoms of the Bhils. This connection between the Bhils and the Guhilas is also seen in the coronation ceremony in the Ekalingaji temple inscription of AD 1282. Secondly, the colonisation of new areas, as seen in the Pratihara Kakkuka’s inscription, seems to have been accompanied by a more advanced economy—a natural fallout of Rajasthan’s departure from tribalism.
Secondly, the colonisation of new areas must be studied with reference to mobility of different groups towards a desirable ksatriya status. This is especially clear for the inclusion of the Medas and the Hunas into the Rajput superstructure—their tribal background debunking the idea of the structure of Rajput being composed only of groups linked by descent, rather than by assimilation and expansion.
This evidence of castes as being mixed, as seen from certain sources, leads us to conclude that these clans did not have original ancestry, but developed and evolved through historical stages. This can be seen from the examples of major, dominant political clans—the Pratiharas, the Guhilas and the Cahamanas. Despite attempts at dissociating Gurjara from the ‘Gurjara-Pratihara’ combine, through the argument that ‘Gurjara’ in the combine represents the country, not the people, documents dating from the 7th century suggest that Pratiharas who rose to prominence in the 8th century were not a separate group, but evolved from the Gurjara stock; also, 7th century documents “suggest a wide distribution of the Gurjaras as a political power in western India, and references to Gurjara commoners may indicate that the political dominance of certain families reflected a process of stratification that had developed within the stock…It would seem that the Pratiharas, like several other Gurjara lineages, branched off the Gurjara stock through the channel of political power…the fact that some Pratiharas also became brahmanas will find parallel in development among the Abhiras out of whom emerged Abhira brahmanas, Abhira ksatriyas, Abhira sudras and so on.”
As a result, there definitely did exist, despite want of evidence, a certain correlation between the achievement of political eminence and a movement towards a corresponding social status. For a majority of the newly emerging royal lines ‘Brahma-ksatriya’ was a transitional status, relatively open and useful for a supposedly authentic transition from Brahman to ksatriya status. This openness was seized upon by prospective royal clans and families before they could formulate a claim to a pure ksatriya origin. This gradual change is illustrated by a comparison between two Pratihara inscriptions of the 9th century from the Jodhpur area. An AD 837 inscription explains the origin of the Pratihara brahmanas and ksatriyas in terms of two wives, one ksatriya and the other brahmana, of brahmana Haricandra. The second inscription from AD 861 drops from its genealogical list the brahmana wife. This allusion to brahmana descent served its purpose only till the time a need for respectable origin was required. Once a respectable source for the ksatriya status was found, and once the political desire of feudatory clans for upward mobility had been fulfilled, the brahmana past was dropped from the genealogies. Thus, a search for actual origins is a futile one, in the wake of evidence that clearly points towards social mobility through political evolution and genealogical modifications. There was clearly a political process at play, whereby clans sought upward mobility from initial feudatory positions—the Gujarat Gurjars were feudatories of the Valabhi king, the early Guhilas of Kiskindha and Dhavagarta were feudatories too; Bappa Rawala, the traditional founder of the Mewar Guhila line appears to have started out with a feudatory title of rawala. The Cahamanas of Gujarat and Rajasthan were clearly feudatories of the Gurjara-Pratiharas. The political transition, moreover, from feudatory status to independent royalty was clearly through military strength. The point thus being made is interesting as much as it is important: the emergence of the early Rajput clans took place within the existing hierarchical political structure. This point is often missed in efforts to build an image of the Rajputs as making a sudden and brilliant debut on the north Indian political scene.
The emergence of the Rajputs, as far as economic processes are concerned, is associated with new features of land distribution and territorial system, seen in both large empires of the Pratiharas and Chahamanas, as well as in the localised kingdoms of the Guhilas. Clan networks were consolidated through a distribution of land among the royal kinsmen. Terms like vamsapotakabhoga, svabhoga, bhoga etc. found in inscriptions like the one at Rajorgarh, or the Harsa inscription of AD 973, define the system of land distribution and donation among the royalty and the subordinate royal classes like the Brahmans and the Ksatriyas, and officials like the dusadhya. In the 12th century, under the Nadol Chahamanas, the assignments, termed variously as grasa, grasabhumi or bhukti came to be held by the king, the kumara or the crown prince, rajputras or sons of the king, the queens etc.
Soon, in relation to the above mentioned system of distribution of land, a new unit, comprising six or multiple of six villages came to be referred to, probably to signify some kind of administrative division. These became nuclei of some kind of local control, as seen in the 9th century Saurashtra of the Gurjara-Pratiharas. By the later part of the 14th century, the caurasias or holders of 84 villages had become, as the evidence of Visaladeva Raso suggests, a ‘well known class of chiefs.’ Such big holdings, no doubt, emanated from the process of distribution of land among the members of the ruling class. The caurasia system, though not always strictly adhered to, nevertheless provided a theoretical framework in which linkages between clan members and units could be worked out—a framework which would further aid in the consolidation of the emerging Rajput social structure. No wonder then that the caurasia sytem finds its origins in the early days of the crystallisation of Rajput polity.
Construction of forts, a phenomenon unknown in early times, came to be synonymous with the emergence of the Rajputs. Forts in different geographical locations—Mandor, Chittor, Kota, Jalor, Bharatpur, Alwar served not only defensive purposes. As compositions of populations in their vicinity show, forts served as the foci of power of the ascendant ruling families over their rural surroundings. This is attested to in the grants, seen in the Ropi plates of Paramara Devaraja, dated AD 1052, where the grants of land in rural areas of the fort were made to subordinate families and personalities, in return for allegiance.
Social processes find an obvious pointer in the marriage networks that existed among the clans. Proceeding chronologically from the Pratihara family, one sees a change in the role of marriage—a clear departure is apparent from the unimportance of clan origins and ancestry towards the implicit understanding of the utilisation of marriage as a tool for fomenting inter-clan relationships. In the inscription of AD 837 mentioned earlier, both the Brahmin and the Ksatriya wife are mentioned; in the AD 861 inscription, mention of the Brahmin wife is dropped from the ancestry. Towards the end of this genealogy, Kakka, who is very close to the last and current ruler on the genealogical list is mentioned having married Padmini of the Bhatti clan, considered by many to be identical with the Bhattis of Jaisalmer area. In the Cahamana inscriptions, one finds clear matrimonial preferences for the Rastrakutas, and the Rathors; for the Guhilas, preference was for the Caulukyas, the Paramaras, Rastrakutas, Cahamanas, and the Hunas.
These choices are essentially political, mainly because the families cited here constituted the ruling elites of early medieval Rajasthan. But there were wider social considerations as well—for example, legitimacy to such groups as the Hunas, who had acquired, mainly through military means, sufficient political clout in western India. But such matrimonial link ups, beyond the point of providing legitimacy, also sought collaboration in wider arenas of social and political activity. Hence, instances, though limited, like the one where Guhila Allata, who was married to a Huna princess, and who had a Huna in the kingdom of his son, Naravahana, serves to only elucidate the notion of emerging inter-clan complexities and dynamics, through which Rajput polity evolved, and which would turn to a full-blown social phenomenon in the centuries to come.
In fact, interestingly, matrimonial alliances for social and political concerns led to a proliferation of the Rajput structure. Two inscriptions from the tenth century, suggest the undermining of the purist conception of the ksatriya—the AD 956 inscription from Mandkila Tal near Jodhpur mentions the son of a learned ksatriya who engraved a prasasti and was a sutradhar by profession; another inscription of the Gurjara-Pratiharas, from the Doab region of UP refers to a ksatriya vanik. These examples lead us to believe that the proliferation of Rajputs contributed towards an undermining of the political status of early ksatriya groups which were taking to less potent occupations, and which preferred using the sobriquet “Rajput” rather than “ksatriya.” BDC hypothesises that this “substitution of the traditional ‘ksatriya’ groups by the Rajputs and the consolidation of the Rajput structure may be viewed as a result of collaboration between the emerging clans, not only in terms of inter-clan marriage, but also in terms of participation at various levels of the polity and the circulation of clan members in different kingdoms and courts.” Hence, the forsaking of ‘ksatriya’ status for a more identifiable, relatable, and realistic to the contemporary “Rajput” identity only reinforces the processes that would go into what would later become, not the ‘ksatriya’ phenomenon, but the locally apt ‘Rajput’ phenomenon, marked by economic, military administrative and political collaboration between the clans for social mobility, clan cohesion, and later, the consolidation of a Rajput identity in early medieval period. An interesting manifestation of this phenomenon is seen in the military commemorative stones. While the clans that find mention among these stones (meant for the commemoration of death, mainly on the battlefield) are numerous: Patihara, Cahamana, Guhila, Paramara, Solanki, Rathoda, Candela, Mahavaraha, Mangaliya, Bodana, Mohila, Doda, Dahiya etc, the reference to the class of the dead is singular-“Rajput”. Hence, memorials to violent (and valiant?) deaths came to be attributed to the brave new class of warrior willing to die on the battlefield—the “Rajput”. As a result, a way has been devised to tie the numerous clans together, using the macabre valiant thread of death. It is the Rajput that brings about the clans of Rajasthan together, and dies for the brave cause, not of the clans, but of the Rajput. It is this new ksatriya group that makes up the political order of medieval Rajasthan.
However, another means of the proliferation of the Rajputs, beyond the legitimisation of disparate groups that were willing to come into the nebulous Rajput fold through subscribing to a ‘ksatriya’ ideology was through segmentation and the spread of sub-clans. While there is no evidence of formation of sub-clans through segmentation, what examples (like the formation of the Cahamana family at Nadol and Jalor from the Cahamanas of Sakambhar) suggest is that rather than formation of sub-castes, segmentation led to a process of localisation; localisation of clans, and the resultant Rajputisation was a process of social mobility, whereby disparate groups like the Medas and Hunas were incorporated into the burgeoning Rajput superstructure, and the superstructure in turn absorbed local elements that it came into contact with. Thus, sub-clans weren’t necessarily a product of segmentation of clans, but perhaps a result of the absorption of local elements, when such elements came into contact with some already established clans.
Thus, in conclusion, two chronological stages in the emergence of the Rajputs in the early medieval period may be put forward. In the first stage, it was essentially a political process in which disparate groups seeking political power conformed to such norms as permeated the contemporary political ideology. And among such norms, formation of dynasties through zealously claimed linkages with ksatriya lines of the mythical past to claim legitimacy in the present was a major process of social mobility. As the entry into the Rajput fold basically continued through political power, the traditional norms or the need for legitimization remained.
But in the second stage, roughly from the 11-12th centuries on, “the rise of the Rajputs became a comprehensive social phenomenon as well. As such, the multiplication of the rajaputras should not be viewed as merely reflecting the consolidation of a political power structure; its implication should be extended also to explain the growing phenomenon of minor clans and sub-clans.” The displacement of ksatriya-hood by a more desirable sobriquet of Rajput was one result. The ultimate conclusion was the establishment of a cohesive medieval Rajput identity-albeit, including clans with local variations of tradition, practices as well as history.
Ultimately, the expansion of mere dynastic relations to wider areas of social relations, through segmentation of clans into local powers, the absorption-assimilation of and a converse influence on the local elements—in essence, localism of clans and groups—(like the emergence of Pipadia Guhilas from Pippalapada, and Sonigara Cahamanas from Suvarnagiri/ Jalor) would ensure the future growth of the Rajput network in the Rajasthan of medieval and mughal epochs.