Origin of Rajputs

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
It is not too difficult to "grab" the term. Any powerful warlord can simply bribe a few brahmins from Benares to forge a bogus genealogy and trace his lineage back to Manu himself. That's what the Marathas under Shivaji did; the Marathas were originally Shudras who claimed ancestry from the Sisodias of Mewar, following Shivaji's rise to power. It was apparently enough for Raja Jai Singh to treat him as a "brother".
Jai Singh and Shivaji met as Kings and politicians. The former was a shrewd statesman on a mission to obtain a truce by diplomatic means. He thus behaved accordingly. I cannot claim that a high born King like Jai Singh didn't have caste prejudice in the times where almost everyone in the society was full of it.
Politics is something which overrides a lot of other factors for a King/Royal. Pandavas had to bear Karna, a perceived Shudra, on many occasions .. where one or two of them were even near humiliations. All that happened after Karna became a King ofcourse.
Shivaji's ancestry is something we can dig into at a later time. It is no less interesting.

If the Rajputs had conquered or dominated Iran or Central Asia, you would also see Iranian and Central Asian families/clans/tribes claiming Rajput ancestry.
One may claim and forge to the content of their heart. But facts don't change and identities aren't built out of thin air.
That is the reason why Shivaji's and other Maratha noble's Rajput ancestry is still a debated topic; even after contemporary Brahmins sponsoring it (whatever the truth be).
Grabbing a title is easy when you're in power. Building an identity of an entire community isn't. That is something which takes time, public recognition of centuries and a consistent history.
 

Simple_Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
938
Likes
578
Panini calls the proto-Rajput clans as Ayudhajivani, warriors by profession, which is an apt description for their Rajput descendants.

The clan system was strong among both the Rajput as well as proto-Rajput.

And another similarity was that they both used the Vikram Samvat era. It was started by the proto-Rajput Malavas, under their king Vikramaditya after he defeated the Saka invaders in 57 BC. During the Rajput period the Vikram Samvat became a pan-Indian era, except in the far east and far south.
 
Last edited:

Simple_Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
938
Likes
578
Reading some more about Rajput areas outside of the traditional home of Rajasthan, look at Western Himalayas. These regions like Himachal and Uttarakhand have a high Rajput population, upwards of 30%.

Two prominent Rajput clans of Himachal are the Katoch and Pathania, surnames that are frequently found in the Indian army. Pathania Rajputs are descended from Tomar Rajputs, who are a prominent name in the Chhattis Rajakula, but Katoch name is not linked to any clan in this list.

Katoch are descended from Trigarta, a proto-Rajput warrior clan mentioned by Panini, and they mention the Trigarta ruler names in their Vanshavali (genealogical list). The most important was Susharma Chandra who fought in the Mahabharat war.

Even more than their ancient history the Katoch and Pathania are regarded as Rajput because of their later history. They resisted foreign invaders and fought for Hinduism, and despite many calamities refused to convert to Islam.
 

Simple_Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
938
Likes
578
Pathania Rajputs are descended from Tomar Rajputs, who are a prominent name in the Chhattis Rajakula.
Tomar surname is found among many communities, and so many lower castes like Kawar in Chhattisgarh and Turha in Bihar claim Tomar Rajput ancestry. There may be Tomar muslims even. But none of these communities can claim to be Rajput merely because their ancestor was a Rajput.

Hope that put paid to the claims of purkistanis.
 
Last edited:

Nexus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
44
Likes
28
actually believe it or not most of Rajputs are from Vedic Kshatriya stock. it was british fetish to link almost all light skinned people with Scythian and Iranian invaders. it was like "they looked at me and called me aryan than they looked at my brother and called him Sacythian."

story of Rajput is similar to us Brahmins, there were no Brahmins before Aryan migrated to India, even in early vedic period there was no such thing as Brahmins, all Aryan Priests from vedic tribes and Priest kings of Vedic society united and created a caste called Brahmin.

same way all the Indian and some royal iranian tribes united under one single banner and called themselves rajput. i dont belive that Turks, Kushan or greek kings merged in rajput clans as

1)they ruled lands in modern day pakistan and Afghanistan
2) even light skinned pure Rajputs shows only Indo-Aryan Facial Features.

assimilation worked in both castes such as Rajputs/Vedic kshatriyas maybe assimilated Royal kshatriya clan of Scythian,Kamboj, kushan into their biradri same way Brahmins assimilated Persian Magi Priests and Tribal priests of Scythian,Kamboj and Kushan tribes as well.

15 to 25% if not more brahmins in North India are actually from Persian magi stock...
 

Chimaji Appa

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
243
Likes
634
People often claim they are descendants of Huna invaders who overran the Gupta’s in the 490s. This theory makes no sense as they only got to rule for about 10-20 years before being completely driven out of India by a Gupta-Aukilara alliance. Furthermore, the Hunas also overran parts of the indo Gangetic plains, why settle at the arid deserts of Rajasthan then the fertile indo Gangetic plains? Furthermore, rajputs look absolutely nothing like these Hunas, they have 0 Mongoliod features and look like complete Indics. I felt like this was a good attempt to make anything sublime about India as foreign. Therefore Rajputs =/= Hunas.

Another common complaint is that these rajputs are descendants of sycnthian invaders. This actually makes more sense than the rubbish Huna theory; they actually ruled parts of NW India. Here’s my problems with this theory; Rajputs again look nothing like scynthians and why is their no scynthian elements in their languages? How come these sycnthians are the only rulers who left no trace or impact on their languages. Also, how come scynthians were only able to become Kshatriyas, who are Rajasthani Brahmins then? These sycnthians also ruled present day Gujarat, not Rajasthan. Also, these “fearsome” Scythians got destroyed by the Gupta’s (utterly routed) and Rajputs emerged 400 years later, under the Gurjara Pratiharas. So, you mean to tell me that Brahmins elevated the Scythians 400 years after their demise? You really think Brahmins would elevate “mlecchas” as the sons of kings? You really are going to tell me that Brahmins served in the armies of these “mlecchas”( Skanda, Prithvirajs commander, was mlecchas)?

Another claim is that several rajput clans like the Solankis and Rathores have South Indian origin. So they live in north India, but somehow originate in south India. Furthermore the Solankis ruled Gujarat, and were called Chaulukyas, not chalukyas which ruled in Karnataka. These Solankis also furthered never refer to themselves as “Chalukyas” in any of their inscriptions. Now the Rathores is the most complicated. The Rathores emerged in UP, and are said to have been descendants of the Rashtrakutas. If you don’t know, present day UP was under conflict for 3 major Indian dynasties ; the Rashtrakutas, the Gurjara~Pratiharas, and the Palas. The Rashtrakutas often emerged victorious in the battles, but ended up losing in the long term. Furthermore, they never held Kannauj for more then 7 years. Also, the Gurjara pratiharas ended up victorious and ruled Kannauj till they were completely disintegrated. By this logic, the Rathores are also palas and Gurjaras since Kannauj, the place they emerged from, was also ruled by these dynasties. Here are the facts ; they migrated to Rajasthan from UP, their place of origin, following the fall of the Gadhavala kingdom at the hands of the ghurids, furthermore, they never called themselves kannadigas in any of their inscriptions when they were ruling in marwar. Also, they claim to be descendants of the Gahdavalas, who clearly mention Rashtrakutas as a separate family in their inscriptions, if they do have kanadiga blood, it will be very minuscule.

My personal opinion; they are simply Vedic khastriyas. Each tribe had Brahmins, khastriyas, vaishyas, and Shudras. They originated just like Brahmins did in North India and there is no inscriptional NOR GENETIC evidence to prove they are foreigners.
 

Srinivas_K

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
7,417
Likes
12,935
Country flag
Informative 👍

................................................................................................
People often claim they are descendants of Huna invaders who overran the Gupta’s in the 490s. This theory makes no sense as they only got to rule for about 10-20 years before being completely driven out of India by a Gupta-Aukilara alliance. Furthermore, the Hunas also overran parts of the indo Gangetic plains, why settle at the arid deserts of Rajasthan then the fertile indo Gangetic plains? Furthermore, rajputs look absolutely nothing like these Hunas, they have 0 Mongoliod features and look like complete Indics. I felt like this was a good attempt to make anything sublime about India as foreign. Therefore Rajputs =/= Hunas.

Another common complaint is that these rajputs are descendants of sycnthian invaders. This actually makes more sense than the rubbish Huna theory; they actually ruled parts of NW India. Here’s my problems with this theory; Rajputs again look nothing like scynthians and why is their no scynthian elements in their languages? How come these sycnthians are the only rulers who left no trace or impact on their languages. Also, how come scynthians were only able to become Kshatriyas, who are Rajasthani Brahmins then? These sycnthians also ruled present day Gujarat, not Rajasthan. Also, these “fearsome” Scythians got destroyed by the Gupta’s (utterly routed) and Rajputs emerged 400 years later, under the Gurjara Pratiharas. So, you mean to tell me that Brahmins elevated the Scythians 400 years after their demise? You really think Brahmins would elevate “mlecchas” as the sons of kings? You really are going to tell me that Brahmins served in the armies of these “mlecchas”( Skanda, Prithvirajs commander, was mlecchas)?

Another claim is that several rajput clans like the Solankis and Rathores have South Indian origin. So they live in north India, but somehow originate in south India. Furthermore the Solankis ruled Gujarat, and were called Chaulukyas, not chalukyas which ruled in Karnataka. These Solankis also furthered never refer to themselves as “Chalukyas” in any of their inscriptions. Now the Rathores is the most complicated. The Rathores emerged in UP, and are said to have been descendants of the Rashtrakutas. If you don’t know, present day UP was under conflict for 3 major Indian dynasties ; the Rashtrakutas, the Gurjara~Pratiharas, and the Palas. The Rashtrakutas often emerged victorious in the battles, but ended up losing in the long term. Furthermore, they never held Kannauj for more then 7 years. Also, the Gurjara pratiharas ended up victorious and ruled Kannauj till they were completely disintegrated. By this logic, the Rathores are also palas and Gurjaras since Kannauj, the place they emerged from, was also ruled by these dynasties. Here are the facts ; they migrated to Rajasthan from UP, their place of origin, following the fall of the Gadhavala kingdom at the hands of the ghurids, furthermore, they never called themselves kannadigas in any of their inscriptions when they were ruling in marwar. Also, they claim to be descendants of the Gahdavalas, who clearly mention Rashtrakutas as a separate family in their inscriptions, if they do have kanadiga blood, it will be very minuscule.

My personal opinion; they are simply Vedic khastriyas. Each tribe had Brahmins, khastriyas, vaishyas, and Shudras. They originated just like Brahmins did in North India and there is no inscriptional NOR GENETIC evidence to prove they are foreigners.
 

Chimaji Appa

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
243
Likes
634
RAJPUTS ARE NOT FOREIGNERS BECAUSE:
-Foreign origin theory advocates claim that Rajputs rose into prominence only after the Huna invasions, but fail to realize that “Rajput” identity didn’t even exist at that time. Furthermore, most of the Huna inscriptions have been found in Central and East India, not in Rajasthan, so there would be no reason for a foreign tribe to settle in the arid areas of Rajasthan when they already had the Gangetic plains in control. Furthermore, we know that Toramana died in Varanasi, on his Gupta campaign following his defeat at the hands of the Malavas (the actual ancestors of the Rajputs). Mihirakula continued his campaign into Varanasi before being challenged by Yashodharman of Malwa, who led an alliance of Ex-Gupta feudatories and drive him back to Kashmir. The third Indo-Hunnic war raged on for 20 years and the Hunas weren’t even able consolidate their rule and were heavily disliked by the masses. There is also no evidence that their armies converted en masse, but only the rulers.
-Foreign origin advocates argue that Vedic Khastiryas “went extinct with time” like they had no kids, or successors. If this is true, then Who were the soldiers of Harsha? The Gupta’s? Palas? Mauryans? Shungas? Were they all Huns and Scythians as well? Was Harsha a Hun as well? South India engaged in a 187 year war (probably the most brutal fought by 2 Indian powers), the Chola-Chalukya war, and they still had enough soldiers to compensate for their future kingdoms( Pandyas, Kakatiyas, Yadavas, etc...).
-Foreign origin advocates argue that “the worship of riding horse and being good horsemen must definelty make them Mlecchas”, but they also failed to understand that Cavalry warfare became really popular during the Guptas, as their armies were mainly heavy cavalry. There is also evidence of horse archery in the Gupta coins. By this logic, the Guptas were Kushan descendants as the former succeeded the latter.
- Foreign origin theorists argue that the Fire worship is a clear indicator of their foreign origins but are simply unaware that the Zoroastrians and Indo Aryans also worshipped Fire. By this logic, the Rajputs are actually Persians. Most of these cultural similarities are because Aryans and Scythians are from a similar area.
- Foreign origin conspiracy often argue that the Agnikula myth was invented to “conceal their foreign identity”, but also don’t comprehend that the first mention of this legend is in the later manuscripts of Prithviraj Raso, which was written in the 15th century, much after the first
-Foreign origin theorists argue that they must be scythians as scythians were loved by the Brahmins, but also don’t understand that scythians main capitals were at the west coast, the Malavas and other tribes were in Rajasthan and remained sovereign for quite some time. The only “impact” would be in the west coast, as most scythians were probably in the capitals. There is also no evidence of a mass migration by scythians, and their armies were probably filled up by locals, as the scythians were far from Scythia. The Brahmins also hated the scythians and gave them “Mleccha” status. The Brahmins most probably favored the Guptas, as the Gupta empire was the golden age of Hinduism, and the Guptas were mortal enemies of the Sakas and destroyed them for good. The Brahmins also defeated the Sycthians (Gautamiputra Satakarni).
- Foreign origin theorists also forget that the Huns and Scythians were very warlike people, as contemporary sources describe them as plunderers, rapists, etc... Rajputs, like other ancient Kshatriyas, followed a code of warfare and that PROHIBITS plundering, rape, etc..(besides the Cholas of course). Rajput armies wouldn’t even chase a retreating army, let alone plunder people like anything. They also don’t highlight that the first Jauhar was recorded during Alexander’s Invasion of the Indus, when a tribe who harassed him was subjugated, and the city peoples burnt themselves. This jahaur custom is unheard of in the Scythian and Huna world, as they were just Barbarians and not disciplined warriors like the Rajputs, Romans, Kshatriyas, Byzantines, Han, Mongols, Etc....
 

Shaitan

Zandu Balm all day
Mod
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
4,654
Likes
8,363
Country flag
Hunas for the most part werent mongoloids. There's a decent amount of depictions of them.
 

Shaitan

Zandu Balm all day
Mod
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
4,654
Likes
8,363
Country flag
From some records of Indian rulers boosting about repulsing Hunas, etc. I doubt it was flattering to be a Huna in India after all the damage they've caused. When the position of power changed the remainders probably faced xenophobia and left to more frontier areas, or integrated to various India social groups. They would've been useful as auxiliaries.
 

Chimaji Appa

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
243
Likes
634
From some records of Indian rulers boosting about repulsing Hunas, etc. I doubt it was flattering to be a Huna in India after all the damage they've caused. When the position of power changed the remainders probably faced xenophobia and left to more frontier areas, or integrated to various India social groups. They would've been useful as auxiliaries.
Lol No. The Hunas probably disappeared. I seriously doubt that they would have been elevated to Kshatriya status. There is absolutely no evidence of them “integrating into various social groups”. They were probably treated as Low castes if they were becuase we know that they destroyed the empire that brought the Golden age of Hinduism. It were Gupta feaudztories that destroyed Mihirakula, so the Brahmins would’ve supported them.
 

Shaitan

Zandu Balm all day
Mod
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
4,654
Likes
8,363
Country flag
Lol No. The Hunas probably disappeared. I seriously doubt that they would have been elevated to Kshatriya status. There is absolutely no evidence of them “integrating into various social groups”. They were probably treated as Low castes if they were becuase we know that they destroyed the empire that brought the Golden age of Hinduism. It were Gupta feaudztories that destroyed Mihirakula, so the Brahmins would’ve supported them.
Like I said when the position of power shifted I am sure they did face xenophobia within India. It wasnt flattering to the have the huna tag after Indian rulers took over. A lot of them surely left to frontiers areas, but I am sure some of them did integrate into various groups. This was the case for a lot of the invaders of India. They still have their uses as auxiliaries.
 

Chimaji Appa

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
243
Likes
634
A lot of them surely left to frontiers areas, but I am sure some of them did integrate into various groups. This was the case for a lot of the invaders of India.
Which invaded integrated into the “Indian society”. Simply the rulers adopting Hinduism does not mean that the entire population or army would become Hindu. To give you a popular example; Akbar.
They still have their uses as auxiliaries.
I seriously doubt anyone would associate with them. If they really did integrate, they were probably treated as shudras. There is also mention of Toramana as a Shudra.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
My 2 cents:

  • Rajput is the Prakrit version of Sanskrit Rajaputra. Hence, anyone who is a son of (or descended from) king(s) is Rajput.
  • Kshatriya is a Substative-Noun that originates from Kshetra, which means territory. Anyone who is in charge of ruling, defending, or administering this territory is a Kshatriya, and can mean a warrior or non-warrior. The Hellenic-Persian equivalent of the word Kshatriya is Satrapi.
  • Yavans are known to be alien to India, and we have an Indian surname called Chauhan or Chavan. There is a strong possibility that some Rajputs might have actually descended from foreigners.
  • The fire ritual performed by Agasthya on Mt. Abu might have something to do with it. Folklore says, Rajputs emerged from within the fire, but I don't believe that. However, could it be that the fire was a massive military signal atop a mountain intended for the warrior tribes in the distant lands, to come in the defense of Brahmins?
That way you will call all Jats (surajmal types), Yadavas, Nandas ( Barber type brahmans), Brahmins, Guptas, Mauryas, Pals of Bengal, The Rakshasn Kulas, The Nagas and Adivasis etc as Rajputs because they were rulers and their progeny should have been Rajputs as per your excellent philological jugglary?

Hawa men .... sab hawa men.... Johnny's head in air.

There is a distinct line of Kshatriya flowing in two streams called Surya Vansa and Chandra vans...... they were the only two categories that got recognized once the varnas were solely determined by birth... Subsequently, the same people were called Rajputs ..... forget the caste denominations of the day. All Rajputs are either in the descendant line of Sun clan or Moon clan.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
Another aspect of the caste line has been determining the line of progeny which was never decided by mother but always by father.... Mother of many Chandravansis and even of Surya vansa had been from lower caste or even Shudras but the progeny of a couple was also known by the Vansa of the father.

Many of great heroes of our heritage like, Ved Vyas, Pandu and Dhritarashtra, King Janmejaya , King Bharat were born out of Non-khstriya mothers. Abhimanyu was son of a Yadav girl. grandson of a Yadav lady etc.

So do not go by tracing ancestor by mothers.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
The most authentic source of our social structures are our Puranas. So we do not need a Romila Thapar to call the Rajputs as Huns or William Tod to rewrite Purans....... :daru:
 

Shaitan

Zandu Balm all day
Mod
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
4,654
Likes
8,363
Country flag
Which invaded integrated into the “Indian society”. Simply the rulers adopting Hinduism does not mean that the entire population or army would become Hindu. To give you a popular example; Akbar.

Akbar adopted some hybrid religion that wasnt supported by the population and aristocracy in the empire. He's a bizarre outlier among any Muslim ruler anywhere let alone India. Muslim rulers never took up Indic script, architecture, clothing, etc. And btw, these were mostly C. Asians like before. They like you said of the Hunas never, "disappeared", into the Indian fabric. They caused major disruptions to Indian civilization and continue to be a complete distinct opposite spectrum of majority of Hindus. Where as the Sakas, Hunas, Greeks, etc. all eventually "disappeared" into Indian society adding sightly to Indian culture, but not disrupting the course. No different to the Avars, Samaritans, Scythians, Huns into Europe, they also, "disappeared", into various European groups.

I seriously doubt anyone would associate with them. If they really did integrate, they were probably treated as shudras. There is also mention of Toramana as a Shudra.
Even the Satavahanas used Saka auxiliaries. Indians would be stupid not to use them as shock horsemen, horse archers. The Romans, Persians,etc. regularly used enemy auxiliaries that were good at specific roles. Even after the barbarians destroyed the western half of Rome. Even after the Scythians killed Cyrus. I am sure Indians rulers did the same.
 
Last edited:

Hijibiji

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2020
Messages
879
Likes
1,152
Country flag
My two cents:
1) Let a few true-blue rajputs get a DNA test done ;) This is 21st century you know ;)
2) The rule in ancient world was very simple. The religion/ dharma of the king became the religion/ dharma of the people and army. Example: Ashoka in India and early Christian Roman emperors.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top