ORIGIN OF RAJPUTS

Introduction
The period between c. 600-1200 CE in the history of India saw an emergence of various regional
configurations. The contours of these kingdoms of early medieval India were fluid and difficult
to define. Kingdoms can be more easily identified by their nuclear areas and political centres
than by their boundaries. B. D. Chattopadhyaya believes that there was no strict separation
between lineages and states in early medieval India, and that lineage ties were in fact central to
political formations. Nevertheless, the emergence of any lineage is an indispensable process.
In this paper, we shall be looking at one of the major clans that emerged in Early Medieval India.
The emergence of a new clan or lineage stimulates a number of questions to arise about their
origins, the process of their penetration and so on. Several historians have endeavoured to seek
the answers to these questions, hence divergent views have come forward about the origins of the

Rajputs.

Who were the Rajputs?

During the 7th and 8th centuries emerged a new clan of people who came to be known as the
Rajputs. They basically belonged to the warrior class of people and were located in Rajasthan
and some Central parts of India.
The use of the term Rajaputra for specific clans or as a collective term for various clans emerged

by the 12th century. D. C. Sircar puts forth that in Kalhana's Rajatarangini the term rajaputra is

used in the sense of a mere landowner, who later claimed birth from 36 clans of the Rajputs. This
indicates that by the beginning of the 12th century CE, these clans had already come into
existence and finally, during this period rajaputras had become a class by themselves.

Origin of the Rajputs: The Debate

Agnikula Mvth
According to the myth certain clans emerged from the fire of a great sacrifice conducted by sage
Vasishtha on Mount Abu. The 'Agnikula Rajputs' included the Pratiharas,
Paramaras, Chalukyas and Chahamanas. The modern scholars who believe in the Agnikula
origin of the Rajputs are: Watson, Forbes, Camphel, D. R. Bhandarkar etc. They believe that all
the so-called agnikula Rajputs are of Gurjara stock. However, the Gurjara origin of the Rajputs is
being criticised by many scholars who argue that the Gurjara is not only the name of a people but
also a country and of all the people who inhabited it, to whichever caste or clan they might have

belonged

Thesolar and lunar origins myth

The Mahabharata and the Puranas mention the solar and lunar origin of the Rajputs. The early
inscriptions of the Chandella family mentioned their origin that traces back from the moon,
classifying them as the lunar race of the Kshatriyas. It appears that the concept of the solar and
lunar Kshatriyas of the Sanskrit literary texts was also taken up in the bardic account of Raso and
inseriptions during the early medieval period.

The foreign origintheory

Nihar Ranjan Ray talks about the foreign origin of the Rajputs in his article where he wields the
arguments made by Professor D.R. Bhandarkar and further criticisms of his views by C.V
Vaidya. Bhandarkar believes that the Grujaras came into India along with the Hunas in 6th
century AD. They have been mentioned in the Harsha charita for the first time. After the 7th
century they have been regarded as Brahmanas or Kshatriyas. The Hunas and the Gurjaras
migrated from the North-west towards East and South and penetrated into the interior regions
where they imbibed the Hindu religion and culture. The words Gujara or Gurjars have been used
in the families of Kshatriyas and Brahmanas.
CV Vaidya has refuted this theory. He says that many people who were looked down upon as
Shudras in Punjab and Rajputana, were actually Aryans. In this case the Jats and Marathas had to
suffer the most. The Gurjaras also look like Aryans although their complexion is a little darker.
They have the finest noses, long heads and tall structures. They are Aryas in race. Complexion is
not a major factor in determining the race. He also refutes the argument of getting the position of
Kshatriyas by foreigners who came to India as late as the 6th century.
N.R Ray says that even if they were Aryans, they cannot be called the indigenous people of
India, as the Aryans themselves were foreigners.

2
B. D. Chattopadhvava's argument
According to him the emergence of the Rajputs was because of the prevalent occurrence of the
proliferation of lineage-based states in early medieval India. The rise of the clans that ultimately
came to be known as Rajputs can be recognized against the backdrop of numerous aspects such
as the development of the agrarian economy, new facets in land distribution, which includes
distribution of land among royal kinsmen, inter-clan partnerships in the form of marriage and
political alliances, and the construction of fortresses on an extraordinary scale.
There are two important pointers to the process of emergence of the Rajputs in the early
medieval records; First, the records, at one level, may have to suggest colonisation of new areas
traced not only in the significant expansion of number of settlements but also in some epigraphic
reference which suggest an expansion of agrarian economy. Through widespread distribution of
archaeological remains and epigraphs of the period along with appearance of numerous new
place names, the records suggest the same; Second, the mobility of the ksatriya status was in
operation elsewhere in the same period prompts one to look for its incidence also in Rajasthan.
He further highlights the following clements which were directly linked to the process of the
emergence of Rajputs.
Agrarian and Territorial Settlements: In the case of Rajasthan the territorial expansion of
what has come to be known as Rajput power was achieved, at least in certain areas, at the
expense of the erstwhile tribal settlements. Similar movements for expansion are found in the
cases of the Guhilas and the Cahamanas as well. There is also a voluminous bardic tradition
which suggests that the Guhila kingdoms in south Rajasthan succeeded the carlier tribal
chiefdoms of the Bhils. Moreover, the colonization of new areas appears to have been
accompanied by what may be loosely termed a more advanced economy. In other words,
Rajasthan, in the period when Rajput polity was beginning to emerge, was, in its various areas,
undergoing a process of change from tribalism.
Mobility to Kshatriya Status: Colonization was not a process through which all Rajput clans
emerged. The Meds had gotten Rajput status from a tribal background and anothergroup named
Hunas, were incorporated in Indian society and attained the status of Kshatriyas. The criteria for

3
the inclusion of the Meds and Hunas was mobility to Kshatriya status which was normally
practiced. For the majority of other newly emerging royal lines Brahma-Kshatra was a
transitional status. B.D Chattopadhyaya says that brahma-kshatra might have been an open

position during the early medieval period which is indicated by its wide use in India at this time,
it was adopted by the new royal families before they could formulate a claim to a pure ksatriya
origin. The continuation of references to Brahmanical origin was as much related to a concern
for pure descent as the need for finding a respectable source from which the kshatriya status was
derived. This shows that the emergence of the early Rajput clans took place within the existing
hierarchical political structure.
Change in the political status of early 'kshatriyas' : The proliferation of the Rajputs
contributed towards an undermining of the political status of the early ksatriya groups which
were taking to less potent occupations and also that the preferred term for the ruling stratum was
now not so much 'ksatriya' as 'Rajput'. The substitution of the traditional 'ksatriya' groups by
the Rajputs and the consolidation of the Rajput structure can be seen as a result of the
collaboration between the emerging clans. It was as much in terms of inter clan marriage as in
terms of participation at various levels of the polity and circulation of clan members in different
kingdoms and courts. The process can be traced to the feudatory- overlord relationship between
Pratiharas, cahamana and others, the network of such relationships spread gradually. This can be
seen through the changing typology of inscription of Rajasthan. The royal commands conveyed

through epigraphs from 7-10th centuries were addressed to various categories of officials, but in
later inscriptions these lists of officials are absent generally. It is only in a much later period that
the rajaputras, or more generally the members of various clans, are found placed at various
positions in the Rajput socio-political structure. This shows that the inter-clan relationship
governing the distribution of power helped to consolidate the structure of Rajput polity in the
early medieval period. An extension of this argument would be to examine the nature and
incidence of participation in the military exploits of the period though there is no direct and
detailed evidence about the composition of warriors at various levels but here the evidence of a

particular type of sculptured stone can be used, which became widespread in Rajasthan from
early medieval period onwards. These are the memorial relics (in inscriptions they're known as
govardhana dhvajas and paliyas or devali or deuli, or devakulika), these were installed to
commemorate death, including death on battlefield. The memorials to violent deaths relate

4
mostly to croups recognised as Rajputs, and their incidence in early medieval period seems

higher than others. The concept of memorial stones may be a borrowed one but the way they
were fashioned and the contexts that many of them represented in this period relate largely to the

new 'ksatriya' groups which together made up the political order of Rajasthan.

Inter-clan Relations: In terms of social relations, the consolidation of the Rajput clans and the

speeding up of the process of "Rajputization'" were done with the formation of marriage
networks among the clans also known as inter-clan relationships. Inter-clan relationships,

through marriages revealed wider social implications. Primarily, it could provide social

legitimacy to such groups as the Hunas who had acquired sufficient political power in western

India by this period, leading finally to their inclusion in the Rajput clan list. Secondly, inter-clan
mariage relationships may have led to collaboration in wider areas of social and political

activity. The consolidation of Rajput dominance was also because of the movement of clan

members to different kingdoms and courts and their contributions at various levels of polity.
Emergence of minor clans: An important aspect of the proliferation of the Rajputs was the

emergence of various minor clans and subdivisions of the major clans. The continuing process of

the formulation of the Rajput clans, presumably through the acquisition of political power, is
attested by inscriptions. The subdivisions of the major clans had become fairly numerous by this

time. That the new clans and what came to be recognised as subdivision of earlier clans were

being drawn into the Rajput network is suggested by a few cases of marriages of which records

are available. How did these clans emerge? The process expectedly used to explain would be the

segmentation of clans, which sometimes resulted from their movements to new areas. But there

seems to be no actual evidence to support this claim. BD Chattopadhyay puts forth the concept

of 'localism' in the phenomenon of caste formation. Rajputization, according to him, was a

process of social mobility which, in the wake of its formation into a structure, drew in such

disparate groups as the Medas and the Hunas. From these perspectives, the formation of various

sub-clans was not necessarily a result of the direct segmentation of clans, but perhaps a product

of the mechanism of the absorption of local elements, when such elements came into contact

with some already established clans.

Mobility from Feudatory to Independent Status: Some Rajput clans emerged from the

feudatory to the independent status, as is apparent from the genealogical claims. The case of

Gurjaras of Gujarat, Guhilas of Mewar, Chahamanas of Gujarat, emergence of Rajputs in

Rajasthan, ete were a case of transition from feudatory to independent status. This transition and
upward movement was an outcome of the development of military strength. Thus, the emergence

of the Rajputs, in the existing hierarchical political structure was not rapid but a slow process. In
a period when detailed genealogies with a respectable ancestry were being put forward on behalf

of sovereign families of a clan, another section of the same clan, placed in a feudatory position,

did not advance any such claim at all.

The System of Land Distribution: The emergence of early Rajputs at the level of the economy,
can be associated with certain newer features of land distribution and territorial system had
emerged. One of the characteristics of land distribution, the trend of which appeared to have
been higher in Rajasthan, was the distribution of land among royal kinsmen. It was a common

practice among the Pratihara, Chahamana, and Guhila clans. These land assignments were
hereditary. One specific feature was that though the other assignees were not influential to grant

land independently out of their holdings and were dependent on the agreement of the king, the
kinsmen did not need any sanction from the king and could make grants independently without
the king's agreement. Related to this was a new land unit which appears to have consisted of six
villages and multiples thereof. The use of this land unit was not limited to Rajasthan, but its
incidence is highest in this region. The units were in many cases part of such administrative

divisions as mandala, bhukti or visaya, but the statements in inscriptions that villages were

attached (patribaddha) to such units may suggest that the units became the nuclei of some kind
of local control and its spread to Rajasthan was perhaps intended to facilitate the distribution of
land and political control among the ruling elites. By the late 14th century, the caursia or the
holder of 84 and big holders had become 'a well-known class of Chiefs. Such big holdings
emanated from the process of the distribution of the land among the members of the ruling clans.
Despite inadequate inscriptional evidence, the rudiments of the caurasia arrangement and its
connection with the distribution of land can be traced to this time, in the early phases of the

crystallization of Rajput polity.

Fortifications: The Rajput clans made themselves stronger by maintaining military power, one
of the chief characteristics of which was the construction and conservation of forts. In the early
medieval period, some inscriptions are mentioned at a number of fortresses in Rajasthan. The
fortresses served not only defence purposes but also represented the numerous foci of power of
the ascendant ruling families and appear to have had close links with landholdings in the

6
neighbouring areas. References to durgas in the context of lands donated, as BDC points out,
suggest that forts were the foci of control for their rural surroundings. Thus along with the
assignment of land, occasionally in terms of units which could be made into administrative units
as well, the construction of fortified settlements in large numbers could be seen as part of a
process of the consolidation of their position by the ruling clans.

The Gurjara-Pratiharas: A case study

The Gurjara-Pratiharas were chronologically the earliest and historically the most important of
the Rajput dynasties.The dynasty was founded by a Brahmana named Harichandra, in the area
around Jodhpur in Rajputana. Various other Gurjara families, probably collaterals, set up small
principalities to the south and east of this area. The Gurjara-Pratiharas came to prominence in the
second quarter of the 8th century, when they offered successful resistance to the Arabs during the
time of Nagabhata I. This king's line soon became the most important powerful Pratihara family,
eclipsing the Jodhpur branch. Nagabhata's control extended over parts of Malwa, Rajputana, and
Gujarat. Later Gurjara-Pratihara kings, including Nagabhata II, moved into the Kanauj region.
The best known Gurjara-Pratihara king was Bhoja, grandson of Nagabhata I. He ascended the
throne in or before 836 CE, and had a long reign of over 46 years. His earliest inscription-the
Barah copper plate of this date was issued from the skandhavara (royal camp of victory) at
Mahodaya. Mahodaya may have been another name for Kanauj. Bhoja was defeated by the
Palas, Rashtrakutas, and Kalachuris in the first part of his reign, but subsequently managed to
make a comeback. He won victories against the Palas and possibly also against the Rashtrakutas,
aided by feudatories such as the Chedis and Guhilas. A 9th century Arab account of India,
attributed to the merchant Sulaiman, refers to the great military power and riches of a king
named Juzr, usually identified with Bhoja. The expansion of the Gurjara-Pratihara kingdom
involved constant conflicts with other contemporary powers such as the Palas and Rashtrakutas.
The Gurjara-Pratiharas subsequently suffered several defeats. n the early 10th century, during
the time of Mahipala, the Rashtrakuta Indra IlI completely devastated the city of Kanauj. There
was another Rashtrakuta invasion in c. 963, this time led by their king Krishna. The feudatory
chiefs and provincial governors of the Gurjara-Pratiharas gradually started asserting their
independence; the empire disintegrated and was reduced to the area around Kanauj. The Gurjara-
Pratiharas had a rather shadowy existence thereafter and were wiped off the political map by the
Ghaznavids in the early 11th century. Their powerful successor states in central and western
India included the Chahamanas or Chauhans in Rajputana, Chalukyas of Solankis in Gujarat, and
Paramaras or Pawars in Malwa. The fact that these three dynasties shared the myth of Agnikula
origin with the Pratiharas suggests that they were connected to each other by ethnic or kinship

ties.The atecedents ofthe Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty are a subject of debate. The word pratihara
means doorkeeper. Both the early Jodhpur and imperial Pratiharas had a common tradition that
their name came from the fact that their ancestor, the epic hero Lakshmana, once served as a
doorkeeper to his brother Rama. Some historians think that the Gurjaras were a foreign people
who came into India in the wake of the Huna invasions, but there is no conclusive proof of this.
Another view is that Gurjara is the name of a country (i.e., land), not of the people, though in

ancient times people generally gave their name to their land and not vice versa. A few scholars

consider the Gurjaras and Pratiharas to be two different families or tribal groups. Others think
that the Pratiharas were a clan of the Gurjara tribe. The modern Gujars who inhabit the
northwest, westerm Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Uttar Pradesh may represent their descendents.

Conclusion
In conclusion, BD Chattopadhyaya, envisages two chronological stages of emergence of the

Rajputs in the early medieval period. The first stage was essentially a political process in which
disparate groups seeking political power conformed to such norms as permeated the
contemporary political ideology. While the entry into the Rajput fold, basically, continued to be
through political power, the need for legitimization remained. In this respect BDC considers the
emergence of Rajputs similar to a pan-Indian phenomenon, namely formation of dynasties, many

of which sought legitimization through claiming linkages with ksatriya lines of mythical
past. The second stage, from the 11th-12th centuries, the rise of Rajputs became a
comprehensive social phenomenon as well. From multiplication of the rajaputras to the growing
phenomenon of minor clans and subclans, all reflect consolidation of political power.
BDC finally concludes by saying that it was in the expansion of mere "dynastic' relations

towards a wider arena of social relations that lay the future growth of the Rajput network.