Rajput Federation

From Jatland Wiki
(Redirected from राजपूत)
In this section we are discussing inter relationship of Jats and Rajputs.

What constitutes a Rajput ?

Hukum Singh Panwar[1] has replied this question: He writes ....A Rajput may be a Jat of the ancient orthodox faith[2]. The term , Rajput is an occupational rather than an ethnological expression[3]. This fact has undoubtedly been confirmed by the researches of Chattopapadhyay and Kushwaha[4]. They say, "all these populations have a common origin, i.e., they are the fragments of the same population, settled in their settlements and occupational patterns, have come to be known differently in the courses of time". They further suggest that "the closeness of the Rajputs with the Jats lends weight to the view that the Jats were originally Rajputs fallen in social status due to their adoption of widow remarriage, and these populations partly branched off a common ancestral population in a none too distant past". However, we do not agree with them regarding the first part of their suggestion. We, rather, feel that the Rajputs are the Jats who discarded the old custom of widow remarriage under Brahmanical influence.

In fact, the Rajputs are those Jats and Ahirs (Abhirs) who rose to political eminence through the blessing of the priests at Mount Abu[5].

  • The term Rajput came into use in the 16th century[6] ,
  • the Maratha in the 17th,
  • the Sikh in the l5th[7],
  • the Gujar in the 9th[8]
  • whereas the term Jat is the oldest[9] of all.

Bhim Singh Dahiya[10] writes....In the words of Hindu Tribes and Castes, "in all the ancient catalogues of the thirty six royal races of India, the name Jit has a place, though by none, is he ever styled 'Rajpoot'." This later statement is based on the fact that Rajputs are but formally Hinduised Jats and Gujars. Those who refused to accept all the conditions and dictates of rigid Brahminical order, were not formally converted and therefore, they remain, to this day, the same Jats, Gujars and Ahirs, corresponding to the Central Asian Getae, Gusur and Avars/Abirs, respectively. That is why, the purely non-Indian, clan names are common to all the three people of Jats, Gujars and Rajputs. For example, let us take the clan name Dahiya. Dahiyas in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Bhilwara area of Rajasthan call themselves Jats. Dahiyas in Jodhpur area call themselves Rajputs, and Dahiya is also the clan name of Gujars. The same is true of other clan names like, Tomar, Pawars, Dhankhads, etc. That is why Qanungo was misled into writing that the earlier Jat occupants of the soil were supplanted by the new Rajput immigrants: Parmars displaced Jats in Malwa, Tanwars snatched away Delhi from Dhillon Jats, Rathores

[p.72]: wrested Bikaner and Bhattis took Jaisalmer from Johiya Jats.[11] Qanungo forgot that Pawars (Parmar), Tanwars, Bhattis, Johiyas, etc., are found in Jats as well as Rajputs. The replacements of Jats by Rajputs was because of the Brahminical instigations against the former and in favour of the latter, because these 'Rajputs' had been newly converted and it was a case of "youpraise-me-I-praise-you". The Brahmans gave Kshatriya status to 'Rajputs' and wrote Prasastis in their praise, linking them with Rama and Arjuna (Solars-Lunar races), and the Rajputs gave them, in return, handsome Dakshina" and Agraharās.

Bhim Singh Dahiya[12] writes....The theory was advanced by some English writers that the Jats were offshoots of the Rajputs. We have already tendered enough material to demolish It. It is exactly like putting the cart before the horse. If not from earlier periods, right from the time of Ashtadhyayi which mentions "Jata Jhata Sanghate", the existence of the Jat confederacy in India is fully established. The Sibis, Dahiyas, Mores (Mauryas), Varikas, Tanks, Mans, Kangs, Lohans, Rathis etc. are proved to be the offshoots tenth or eleventh century Rajputs who themselves were but converted Jats and Gujars? The absurdity of this theory will be clear to any sane person who studies the theories of their origin. ....

It should be noted that the Man, Dhillon, Virk, Kang, Her, More, Johl, Pauniya, etc., are not found among the Rajputs. The reason is simple none of them were formally converted to the orthoox Brahmanism. Thus we must ignore all these so-called Rajput-descent stories and other nursery tales.

Mention of Rajaputra by Panini

Rajaputra (राजपुत्र), Rajakumara (राजकुमार), prince, is mentioned by Panini in Ashtadhyayi. [13]

Rajaputraka (राजपुत्रक), assemblage of princes, is mentioned by Panini in Ashtadhyayi. [14]

Thus Panini mentions Rajaputra but not the word Rajput.

Rajanya and Rajputs

Bhim Singh Dahiya[15] clarifies that some authorities maintain that Rajputs were anciently called Rajanya. But Rajanya was the name of a tribe, and according to Amar Kosa Rajanyakam means, "a collection of warriors."[16] This is the same meaning which Panini gave to the word Jat in the fifth century B.C.


राजन्य (AS,p.781): महाभारत, सभापर्व 52,14 में वर्णित एक जनपद जिसके निवासी युधिष्ठिर के राजसूय यज्ञ में भेंट लेकर उपस्थित हुए थे-- 'काश्मीराश्च, कुमाराश्च, घोरका हंसकायनाः, शिबित्रिगर्तयौधेया राजन्या मद्रकेकयाः'. राजन्य जनपद के सिक्के जिला होशियारपुर (पंजाब) से प्राप्त हुए हैं.[17]

राजन्य पाणिनिकालीन भारतवर्ष में अंधक-वृष्णि संघ के अंतर्गत जो अभीषिक्तिवंश्य क्षत्रिय थे, उन्हें ही कहते थे। (6/2/34 काशिका राजन्यग्रहणमिहाभिषिक्त्त वंशायानाम क्षत्रियाणां ग्रहणा ग्रहणार्थम् )[18] [19]

Jats and Rajputs

Ram Sarup Joon has described in detail about this topic in History of the Jats/ChapterVIII (p.132-142). We take here only salient points:

[p.132]: A number of English as well as Indian historians have tried to prove the Rajputs to be descendants of foreign invaders. This is not correct. The majority of the Rajputs belong to ancient Jat gotras and only a small number to Saka and Hun communities.

Up to the reign of Harsh Vardhan, the word Rajputs is not known to have existed. It came into being after the 'Agni Kund Shuddhi' (Purification by fire) on Mount Abu, when four powerful rulers were given the title of Agni Kul Rajput. Later, as there power grew more and more tribes got attracted to join them and call themselves Rajputs. Prominent amongst these was Panwar and Pratihar who were Gujars of Hun origin.

They had established rule in the area around Mount Abu and adopted the title of Pratihar, which means aggressor in Sanskrit. With persistent invasions they had driven towards the South, the powerful Rashtrakuts from their country. The Rashtrakoots tried to establish themselves in Kannauj but were thrown out from there also.

The Pratihars were the descendants of the Huns. The proof of this is that in the area of Mount Abu their oldest habitation is Jabalpuri, which has always been revered by Pratihar rulers.

There is a controversy amongst historians as to the exact date of the institution of 'Agni Kund Yagya'

[p.133]: at Mount Abu. The consensus of opinion is that it took place in the beginning of 8th century A.D. The Gujar kings transformed from Buddhism to Vaishnavism through this Yagya and were called Agni Kul Rajputs or Akshtriyas born out of the sacred fire. This episode is given in Agni Puran and published in Todd's Rajasthan and Hindi Book Jati Bhaskar.

[p.135]: Rajputs chroniclers, in an effort to glorify the race concocted and recorded fictitious genealogical tables, which were not related to Indian history.This encouraged the British historians to conclude that the Rajput was not Indians but foreign invaders settled in India. But a survey of Rajput gotras clearly shows that though there may be a sprinkling of Hun amongst them, they are mostly real Aryans, who prior to being called Rajputs, were Jats or Gujars.

[p.137]: The Solanki Rajputs ware originally called Chalukya and had their kingdom in Southern India. Raja Chol was their bitter enemy. They had matrimonial relations with Harsh Vardhan, the Bhatti Jats, and the Virk Jats of Malwa.

Chandela is also a Jat gotra as has been proved by Thakur Bahadur Singh Pattedar of Badesar in his book "Gyan Sagar Gutka.

The Gondal, Tiwana, Janjeha, Dahiya, Chhonkar, Khokhar Rajputs converted from Jats in comparatively recent times.

The Rathores were ruling Kathiawar, Gujrat and Jodhpur. They were called Rashtar Koot; the Hun Vansi Parmars succeeded in expelling them towards the East and South. They then established themselves in Kannauj and got converted to Rajputs. The Rathore, Rathi, Rath, Rashtra Kot and Rathore are the same people.

The Tanwars call themselves descendants of Pandavas. Actually Raja Anangpal's ancestors had migrated from Punjab to Delhi and were known as Tushars. The territory between Satluj and Chenab was called Tusharstan. The Tushars were closely related to Rasks both of who were Jat gotras.

The Bhatti Rajputs are a branch of Madrak Jat gotra and are named after Bhatti Rao, son of Gaj, ruler of Gajni. The Bhatti Raja of Jaisalmer later converted to Rajput.

Todd, writes that the Chauhan King Anhal I, who ruled 39 generations before Prithvi Raj was a Takshak.

The Rathores were ruling Kathiawar, Gujrat and Jodhpur. They were called Rashtar Koot; the Hun Vansi Parmars succeeded in expelling them towards the East and South. They then established themselves in Kannaj and got converted to Rajputs. The Rathore, Rathi, Rath, Rashtra Kot and Rathore are the same people.

From certain rock edicts it has been proved that the old gotra of Rathores is Girahwar which is a large Jat gotra also called Grewal amongst is Punjabi Jats.

Vincent Smith writes that Rajputs are descendants of Jats, Ahirs and Gujars including some Hun tribes. Rajputs however like to conceal their historical relations with Jats and Ahirs.

Mr. Bakunin writes in his book (Census P.456) that Rajputs are sons of other class woman.

Mr. Ramsefield writes in his book Census (1869) that some Rajputs got themselves recorded as descendants of Saraswat Brahmins.

Thakur Bahadur Singh, Pattedar Badesar Thikana of Bikaner writes in 'Rajput Gyan Sagar Gutka' a book which has been acknowledged by Raja Ganga Singh of Bikaner and other Rajputs that Kanparia Rajputs are the descendants of a Brahmin widow.

The book 'Jati Bhaskar Hindi Bhasha' mentions that several Rajput Gotras originated from Kshatriya fathers and mothers of other castes. According to Shastras, the Gotra is traced from father and not from mother.

[p.139]: The Tanwar and Rathore Gotras are found amongst Jats also. These were the people who did not give Widow remarriage as a custom, and stayed with the Jats, Ahirs and Gujars and did not join the Rajputs.

Most of the Rajputs were created from Gujars who were themselves off shoots of Jats. Later some Jats also converted to Rajputs. The Creation of Rajputs and their coming into power is described in detail.

Replacement Of Jat Kings By Rajputs: It has been brought out in the earlier chapters that the Jat Kings Chauhan, Solanki (Chalukya) Gehlot, Chandela, Tanwar (Tushars) came to be called Rajputs on their amalgamation with Rajput force. Other Jat kings who retained their original entity were later overpowered by the so-called common Rajputs force, and were dispossessed of their territories.

Alberuni, the eminent historian writes that Chittor was governed by Jatrana (Jat) Kings and its old name was 'Jator', where 'Mansarovar' exists in the memory of King Maninder Jatrana. According to the writings of Pandit 14 Sangwan (Jat) Kings again governed Ami Chand Chittor and their capital was in Sarso Jungle.

[p.140]: Jaipur was governed by Jats and Meena Kings. One of these kingdoms was of the Nehra Jats. All these were subjugated by Laxman Kachhwaha in 933 A.D. and their territories annexed.

Jodhpur was ruled by Dahiya Jats and one of their tribes and was called Kaurwansra. The name of their capital was Rajgarh. An edict inscribed by king Jitesen Kaukwansra was excavated in 1215 AD. It has been referred to in the book 'Indians In The Cauvery' Pages 87 and 88.

The famous 'Bhat' (bard) Mehnut Nain has written that Dahiya Jats were rulers of Thal Eshorgarh on the banks of River Godawari. The descendants of King Jai Chand of Kanauj drove them out.

The Dahiya Jats founded Phalor Kot in Jodhpur. The Rathores conquered this Jat kingdom in the 12th Century.

Before the Rathores Bikaner comprised of six Jat kingdoms. Bika conquered these and his uncle Kandal had been a notorious dacoit for forty years.

As there was bitter animosity between Godara and Johiya Jat kings and Godara were weaker; Sarnawasi the Chief of the Godara admitted the suzerainty of Bika on the condition that he would help them against the Juhiya. He would be entitled to collect one Rupee per house and one Rupee per bigha of land as tax. Bika with the help of the Godara Jats succeeded in overpowering the remaining Jat kingdoms.

Only, the Juhia Raja Sher Siagh, whose capital was Rang Mahal near Surat Garh gave a tough resistance to the Rathore. He never admitted the suzerainty of the Rathores even though he had perforce to leave the Punia territory in Bikaner and retreat towards Hissar.

Rajput Gotras Common with Jats

Ram Sarup Joon[20] writes that ....The Rajput sub castes of Chandel, Dahiya, Mohai, Malhi, Jakhar, Bhatti, Karwasra, Chhonkar, Johiya, Dagur, Jhamat, Condal, Ranjha, Noon and Khokar are all Jats who, in not too distant past amalgamated themselves in to, and started calling themselves, Rajputs.

Meaning of Rajput

Dr. K. Jamanadas[21] writes that ....Though the word "Rajput" is supposed to be a corrupted form of the Sanskrit word 'Rajaputra' which means a "scion of the royal blood" and that the word occurs in the Puranas and also in the Harshcharita of Bana, Mahajan is honest enough to accept that the word, in earlier times and in some areas even now, had an disrespectful meaning, as he says:

"The word "Rajput" is used in certain parts of Rajasthan to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar." (Mahajan Vidya Dhar, "Ancient India", Fifth Edition, Reprint 1972, Chand and Co., New Delhi. p. 550 ff.)

Mahajan does not explain why this is so. But the conclusion is obvious that they were not considered by the original residents to be respectable, to start with. This is because "Raja" means royal but "Raj" means semen. The progeny of mixed marriages is even now called by that name in some parts.

Note - The dictionary meaning of रज: n. a menstrual excretion in women; sin, water; pollen of flowers; dirt; night; light; the second of the three constituent qualities of living beings which produce worldly desires and passion and the cause of vice; n, mas. silver; washer man Ref: Maruti's Mega Dictionary (Hindi-English) Compiled by ABid Rizvi, p.680

Rajput Period in India

Dr. K. Jamanadas[22] writes that ....

Rise of Rajputs was for suppressing Buddhism: This was the time when a new people i.e. Rajputs were coming up on horizons, in North India, who were subsequently to dominate the history of India, for some centuries to come. These people were made prominent by the Brahmins, for the specific purpose of suppressing Buddhism by use of force, from among the remnants of Hunas and other foreign hordes which had been broken down by the activities of kings like Baladitya and others.

The following account is mainly drawn from a school text book, "History of India (Hindu period)" by Prof. L. Mukherjee, M.A., Mondal Brothers & Co. Pvt. Ltd. 54-8, College Street, Calcutta. 12. 26th edition., p 198 ff.

"It was a transition period marked by a new grouping of states due to Hun invasions"

"The series of invasions by the Huns and other associated foreign tribes in the fifth and sixth centuries shook the fabric of the Hindu society and brought a rearrangement of the caste system and of the ruling dynasties. The destructive effects of the Hun inroads were, to a certain extent, arrested by Harshavardhana but as soon as his strong hand was removed, they manifested themselves in a regrouping of states. Hence the latter half of seventh century, during which this new grouping of states took place, may be regarded as a period of transition from early to medieval India.

Rise of the Rajputs: "The most prominent feature of this transitional period is the rise of the Rajput Clans. Henceforth the Rajputs began to play a prominent part in the history of Northern and Western India. Almost all the kingdoms were ruled by families of Rajputs. Hence the period from the death of Harsha to Muslim conquest of Hindustan may be called the Rajput period.

India split up into numerous states due to absence of a paramount power: "Another feature of this period is that during this long interval, India was not permanently occupied by any foreign people. The country was split up into a large number of states ruled by local Hindu rajahs, often at war with each other. There was no paramount power to unite together under one rule the various kingdoms each of which pursued its own course quite independently. Hence the history of this period lacks unity and can not be conveniently presented as a continuous narrative.

The Rajput were mostly of foreign origin: "The term 'Rajput' does not occur in early Sanskrit literature nor do we hear of Rajput clans before the eighth century A.D. This proves that they were a later addition to the population of India. During the troubled times that followed the breakup of the Gupta Empire, many foreign races such as the Huns, the Gurjaras, etc. settled in the Punjab and Rajasthan and became Hinduised in course of time. The upper ranks of these foreigners, whose main occupation was war, came to be known as Rajputs, while the humbler folks ranked low in social status and developed into inferior castes such as Gurjaras, Jats and others.

They were descended from Hinduised Gurjars and other foreign tribes: The division of the same class of people into different social grades was based not on birth but on occupation. Of the Hinduised descendants of the original invaders, those who belonged to ruling classes, with war and government as their chief business, came to be treated as Kshatriyas. The common people, on the other hand, took rank in castes of lower degree.

Some of the Rajput clans are descended from low caste native tribes raised to importance: Thus many of the most distinguished Rajput clans such as the Chauhans, the Pariharas, the Pawars (Paramaras), the Solankis (Chalukyas) are descended mainly from foreigners, called Scythians by Tod. While others are descended from indigenous tribes of inferior castes elevated to the rank of Kshatriyas. The Rashtrakutas of the Deccan, the Rathors of Rajasthan, the Chandels of Bundelkhand are examples of the Rajput clans formed by the promotion of the indigenous tribes of inferior social status. Thus, the huge group of the Rajput clans include people of the most diverse descent.

The Rajputs not a race but a group of clans of distinct origin: "From what has been said it is clear that the word Rajput has no reference to race, meaning by that term common descent or blood relationship. The diverse origin of the Rajputs show that they were descended from distinct racial stocks. "The term denotes a tribe or clan of warlike habits, the members of which claimed aristocratic rank." It is their war like occupation coupled with their aristocratic rank that gave them a distinctive common feature and made the brahmins recognize them as Kshatriyas."

Proof of foreign (scythian) origin of Rajputs: The Rajputs according to Tod, are of Scythian origin. He includes under the designation of the Scythian, the nomad hordes of foreign tribes who swooped down upon India during fifth and sixth centuries A.D. Thus the term Scythian refers to the Huns and other associated tribes.

Smith puts forward the following arguments to prove the foreign origin of Rajputs. :-

The Pratihara clan of Kanauj has been proved to be of Gurjara origin: "It is now clearly established that the Huns made their permanent settlements mainly in the Punjab and Rajasthan. The Gurjaras, the most important of the Hun group of tribes established a powerful dynasty in Kanauj. It has now been definitely proved that Bhoja and other kings of the dynasty belonged to the Pratihara clan of the Gurjara tribe. Hence the famous Pratihara or Paramara clan of Rajputs was certainly descended from the Gurjara stock. The fact that one of the well known Rajput clans is undoubtedly of Gurjara stock raises a strong presumption that the other clans also are the descendants from the Gurjaras or the allied foreign immigrants.

Evidence of legend of fire pit at Mt. Abu: This presumption receives support from the familiar legend about the fire pit at Mount Abu in southern Rajasthan. The legend appears in the Chand Raisa and other works. It groups together four Rajput clans into a brotherhood based on their common origin from a sacrificial fire pit at Mt. Abu. The clans mentioned are the Pawars (Paramaras), the Pariharas (Pratiharas), Chauhans and the Solankis or Chalukyas. They are all mentioned as being "Agnikula" or fire born. The legend shows that the four clans mentioned are all related to one another and that they all arose in southern Rajasthan. Now as the Pariharas are undoubtedly of foreign origin their allied tribes are also similarly descended from foreign sources.

Prof. Mukherji makes a note, which is now more or less an accepted view that: "The fact seems to be that when a foreign clan or a tribe became Hinduised that ruling families were recognized as Kshatriyas while the rank and file lost their tribal character and developed into an Indian caste of inferior rank."

Dr. Ambedkar has observed: "One view is that they are foreigners, remnants of the Huns who invaded India and established themselves in Rajasthan and whom the Brahmins raised to the status of kshatriyas with the object of using them as means to suppress Budhism in Central India by a special Ceremony before the sacred fire and who were therefore known as Agnikula kshatriyas...."

He has also given views of Vincent Smith, William Crooke and R.D Bhandarkar. A relevant portion is reproduced here. Vincent Smith observed:

"...These foreigners like their fore -runners the Sakas and the Yeu-chi university yielded to the wonderful assimilative power of Hinduism and rapidly became Hinduised. Clans or Families which succeeded in winning chieftains were admitted readily into the frame of Hindu polity as Kshatriyas or Rajputs and there is no doubt that the Pratiharas and many other famous Rajputs clans of the north were developed out of the barbarian hordes which poured into India during the fifth and sixth centuries. The rank and file of the strangers became Gujars and castes ranking lower than Rajputs in theirs precedence. Further to the south, Various indigenous or aboriginal tribes and clans underwent the same process of Hinduised social promotion in virtue of which Gonds, Bhars, Kharwars and so forth emerged as Chandels, Rathors, Gaharwars and other well known Rajputs clans duly equipped with pedigree reaching back to the sun and moon."

Agnikula Rajputs: William Crooke observed: "... The group denoted by the name Kshatriaya or Rajput depended on status, rather than on descent, and it was therefore possible for foreigners to be introduced into these tribes without any violation of the prejudices of the caste, which was then only partially developed. But it was necessary to disguise this admission of foreigners under a convenient fiction. Hence, arose the legend, how, by a solemn act of purification or initiation under the superintendence of the ancient Vedic Rishis, the fire born septs Known as Agnikula or fire born - viz., the Parmar, Parihar, Chalukya and Chauhan."

Why was the word used to denote illegitimate children?: Though the word "Rajput" is supposed to be a corrupted form of the Sanskrit word 'Rājaputra' (राजपुत्र) which means a "scion of the royal blood" and that the word occurs in the Puranas and also in the Harshcharita of Bana, V.D. Mahajan is honest enough to accept that the word, in earlier times and in some areas even now, had an disrespectful meaning, as he says:

"The word "Rajput" is used in certain parts of Rajasthan to denote the illegitimate sons of a Kshatriya chief or Jagirdar." [23]

Mahajan does not explain why this is so. But the conclusion is obvious that they were not considered by the original residents to be respectable, to start with. This is because "Raja" (राज) means royal but "Raj" (रज) means semen. The progeny of mixed marriages is even now called by that name in some parts.

Tod's views about their Origin: There are many theories about the origin of the Rajputs..... Mahajan summarizes Tod's views. [p.551] According to Tod, the Rajputs were the descendants of the Sakas, Hunas, Kushanas, Gurajaras, etc., who came to India and settled there. In course of time, they were merged into Hindu society. They married Indian wives and made India their home. They were admitted into the Hindu castes. The upper ranks of these foreigners formed a separate war-like class and began to call themselves Rajputs while the lower classes began to be known as [Jats]], Ahirs, etc. In support of his theory, Tod pointed out certain resemblances between the various settlers and the Rajputs. Those were horse-worship, Asvamedha sacrifice, bards, war chariots, position of women, omens and auguries, love of strong fermented liquor, worship of arms, initiation of arms, etc.

Views of Tod were accepted by European Scholars: The view of Tod was accepted by European scholars. According to William Brooke, "Recent investigations have thrown much new light on the origin of the Rajputs. A wide gulf lies between the Vedic Kshatriya and the Rajput of medieval times which it is now impossible to bridge. Some clans, with the help of an accommodating bard, may be able to trace their lineage to the Kshatriyas of Buddhist times, who were recognized as one of the leading elements in Hindu society, and in their own estimation, stood even higher than the Brahmana. But it is now certain that the origin of many clans dates from the Saka or Kushana invasion, which began about the middle of the second century B.C. or more certainly, from that of the White Hunas who destroyed the Gupta Empire about 480 A.D. The Gurjara tribe connected with the latter people adopted Hinduism, and their leaders formed the main stock from which the higher Rajput families sprang. When these new claimants to princely honours accepted the faith and institutions of Brahmanism, the mythical would naturally be made to affiliate themselves to the heroes whose exploits are recorded in the Mahabharata and Ramayana. Here arose the body of legend recorded in The Annals by which a fabulous origin from the Sun or Moon is ascribed to two great Rajput branches, a genealogy claimed by other princely families like the Incas of Peru or the Mikado of Japan." [Quoted by Mahajan, p. 551]

Foreign origin not accepted by Brahmanic Scholars: The idea of foreign origin hurt the pride of Brahmanic scholars, like C. V. Vaidya and Gauri Shankar Ojha, who do not accept the theory of foreign origin. They believe that ethnology, tradition and probabilities all point to the conclusion that the Rajputs were pure Aryans and not the descendant of the foreigners.

Prof. Mahajan [p.551] summarizes their objections. According to Ojha, there is nothing striking in the similarities of the customs and manners of the Sakas and Rajputs. The worship of the Sun prevailed in India from the Vedic times and the practice of sati existed before the coming of the Sakas as is proved by the Mahabharata. The practice of the Asvamedha sacrifice was not unknown. There is mention of such sacrifice in the epic. The worship of arms and horses is not a new thing. The ruling classes in India have always worshipped them.

It is also pointed out that the reading of the Puranas that after King Mahananda of the Sisunaga dynasty, Sudra kings will exercise sovereignty, is not correct. There is evidence to prove the existence of Kshatriya rulers even after the Nanda and Mauryan dynasties.

When Pushyamitra established his power after killing Brihadratha, the last Mauryan king, he performed the Asvamedha sacrifice and at one of those sacrifices Patanjali, the commentator Mahabhashya was also present. If Pushyamitra had been a Sudra, Patanjali would not have been present there.

In the Hathigumpha inscription of Kharvela, there is a mention of the Kshatriyas of Kausambi. The Yadava Kshatriyas ruled over Mathura and the adjoining country before the war of the Mahabharata.

Certain inscription of the 9th and 10th centuries show that the then reigning Rajput families drew their descent from Rama of Suryavamsi or Solar clan and Krishna of Chandravamsi or lunar race. The former Rajput rulers of Bikaner, Mewar, and Jaipur claimed their descent from 'Suryavamsi clan. Likewise, the princes ofJaisalmer and Cutch took pride in calling themselves the descendants of Chandrawamsi clan. All this must have some history basis.

From the above objections, these scholars seem to have missed the point. Pedigrees from Sun and Moon and Rama and Krishna are definitely creations of Bards. Nobody says Pushyamitra was a Shudra. He was a staunch Brahmin who murdered the Buddhist King and started the counter revolution in ancient India, after which culture of yadnyas, which had gone into disrepute due to teachings of the Buddha, again started. That there were no Kshatriyas after Nandas was the arrogance of Brahmins to condemn and downgrade the Buddhist Kings like Asoka and deny them the status of Ksatriyas. No body doubts that horses were worshipped by Vedic Kings. We all know about the Rajmahishi, the principal queen, sleeping with the dead horse at the close of Horse sacrifice. How does all that disprove Tod's theory of foreign origin?

Agnikula Origin: The theory of Agnikula origin of the Rajputs is given in Prithviraj Raso of Chand Bardai. According to this Theory, Parsuram, an incarnation of Vishnu, destroyed all the Kshatriyas. However, the Brahmanas felt the need of warrior class to defend them. They offered prayers to God at top of Mount Abu. A great Havan was performed for about 40 days. The prayers of the Brahmanas brought forth fruit. Form that Agnikund or fire pit, there sprang up four heroes and each one of them created a separate Rajput class. Thus came into existence the Chauhans, the Solankis or Chalukyas, the Parmars and the Praiharas. This theory still finds credence among the Rajputs. Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar and others have found in this myth a confirmation of their theory of the foreign origin of the Rajputs. According to Edwards, the Agnikul myth represents a rite of puragation by fire, the scene of which was in Southern Rajasthan whereby the impurity of foreigners was removed and they became fit to enter caste system. The fictitious character of the story is obvious. It represents a Brahamanical effort to find a lofty origin for the Kshatriya who stood very high in the social order and who gave them a lot of money in charity.

Views of Dr. V. A. Smith: He believes that the Rajputs were a mixed race. Some of the Rajput clans were the descendants of foreigners like Hunas, Sakas and Kushanas and others belonged to the old Kshatriya tribes. In the beginning, these two groups were opposed to each other but in course of time they got mixed up with each other. To quote Smith, "Thus, the Kshatriya or Rajput group of castes at present essentially an occupational group composed of all clans, following the Hindu ritual, who actually undertook the work of Government; consequently, people of most of the great Rajput clans now in existence in spite of their hoary pedigrees are descended either from foreign immigrants or from indigenous races such as the Gonds and Bhars." [Mahajan, p. 552]

Rajput Culture and Civilization: Mahajan summarizes their culture. [p.552] The Rajputs had high pride of their lofty pedigrees. Very soon, they developed into a proud and haughty aristocracy and claimed prerogatives and privileges over the general population and were very jealous to maintain them.

However, they had many outstanding virtues and a spirit of chivalry and lived up to it in spite of difficulties. Rajputs were generous and merciful even to enemies if the latter submitted and sought shelter. "A suppliant who had taken sanctuary by his hearth was sacred." According to Tod, "High courage patriotism, loyalty, honour, hospitality and simplicity are qualities which must at once be conceded to them."

Even when they were victorious they did not resort to wholesale massacre of their enemies. They did not cause needless misery to the poor and innocent people. They offered the stiffest resistance to the foreign invaders but if they once submitted and took an oath of fidelity, they remained faithful to their word of honour and gave up allegiance only when they were themselves deserted by the foreign victors.

Veer V. D. Sawarkar, however, considers this as a demerit of Hindus, that they were showing compassion to others at unwanted times, in several places in his Marathi book, "Saha Soneri Pane" (Six golden Leaves in the Indian History), which he wrote as an rejoinder to Dr. Ambedkar's remark that the History of Hindus is the History of Defeats.

Fighting was their duty: As they were created for the purpose of putting down the Buddhists by use of force and uphold the supremacy of Brahmins, it was natural that they be mentally prepared to keep themselves ready to fight any time the Brahmanism needs their services. Prof. Mahajan explains:

"The whole of the life of a Rajput was devoted to war. On reaching puberty, a Rajput boy was initiated in knighthood by the ceremony of Kharg Bandha or binding of the sword. He was brought up on the stories of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. His ideal was Rama. When not fighting, a Rajput spent his time in hunting and hawking or in feats of arms. During his leisure time, he was entertained by his bards and dancing girls. He also spent his time in drinking opium water (Kusumba) with his retainers. According to Bernier, 'If the Rajput is a brave man, he need never entertain an apprehension of being deserted by his followers; they only require to be well led, for their minds are made up to die in his presence rather than abandon him to his enemies. It is an interesting sight to see them on the eve of adieu one another, as if certain of death.' " [Mahajan, p. 554]

"... The Rajputs loved war so passionately that they passed the night before battle, listening to recitation from theMahabharata, longing for the morning as a lonely wife longs for her husband. They asked: When will the night pass away; when will the morning come: the time of battle?" [Mahajan, p.554]

Why Rajputs failed: Their loyalty to the chief and the clan was very great. They spent their time in quarreling with their neighbours and raiding their territories even for the most trivial reasons. It is stated that once a bloody battle was fought because a Raja, when out hawking, picked up a particle which had fallen over the boundary of his neighbour. But that was the intention of their creators. Brahmins knew that if these people did not fight among themselves, they would be burden to brahmins and a danger to their position in times to come. That was the reason only the selected few were made Rajputs, the rest remaining Jats, Ahirs and other commoners. Loyalty to Clan and not for nation was the cause of their fall, as Mahajan explains:

"Although the Rajputs were strong and brave, they failed to accomplish much. That was partly due to their clannish patriotism. They cared only for their chiefs and the clans. They did not brother about the country as a whole. They were not able to combine together and defeat the foreign invaders. They kept on quarreling among themselves. They fought separately against the foreign invaders and each one of them was defeated separately. They wasted all their time and energy in mutual bickering and jealousies and no wonder they accomplished nothing. Had the Rajput learned to pool all their sources together, it would have been impossible for the Muslim invaders to defeat them. The history of India would have been different." [Mahajan, p.554]

Rajput Government: As is well known, the government of the Rajputs was of a feudal character. All Rajput kingdoms in Northern India were divided into a large number of jagirs held by the jagirdars, who were mostly of the same family as the Rajput chiefs. The strength and security of the State depended upon those jagirdars rendering financial assistance and military service to the king. They were bound to the king by ties of personal devotion and were supposed to prove their fidelity in times of difficulty or danger. Such a government was bound to be inefficient as it fostered individualism and stood in the way of to combination of all the political forces in the state for a common purpose. Since everything depended upon the personality of the king, everything was paralysed if the king happened to be a weak person. No wonder, feuds were a common feature. [Mahajan, p.554]

Life of a common man: It is to be noted that changes in the government at the centre did not affect the life of the people in the villages. The people continued to manage their affairs in their village councils undisturbed by bigger events. Revenue of the state was collected through the agency of Panchayats. The latter also administered civil and criminal justice. The head man of the village and the Patwari performed their usual functions of collecting land revenue and submitting the same to the Treasury.

Social Life: Prof. Mahajan explains how caste system was made rigid and how Brahmins arranged for their dominance to be always maintained.:

"The caste system dominated the Rajput society. There were not only the Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Sudras but also many new sub-castes. In Rajput society, the Brabmanas occupied the first place and commanded the greatest respect. They claimed to have the monopoly of all knowledge, whether it was spiritual or secular. They acted as counselors and ministers of the Rajput Kings. ... The Brahmanas were known as priests and philosophers. They enjoyed those privileges and facilities which were not enjoyed by others. for example, capital punishment was not awarded to Brahmanas. The Rajput rulers and soldiers came from the kshatriyas. The work of business and money-lending was done by the Vaishyas. The Sudras followed the profession of agriculture and artisans. They also served all the three higher castes. The untouchables lived outside the village or the town." [Mahajan, p. 555]

Rigidity of Caste System: The rigidity of Caste system is the legacy of the Rajput period. All the severity and the degradation was brought about during this period. All those masses practicing Buddhist faith and following different vocations became castes. That is, they stopped marrying among themselves. How such castes were produced by imposition of endogamy on an exogamous group and how this was due to the feeling of imitation of Brahmins, was explained by Dr. Ambedkar long time back in 1919. About Rajput period, Prof. Mahajan observes:

"Caste system was not rigid at the beginning of the Rajput period ... However, in the later Rajput period, the caste system become very rigid and in doing so the Brahmanas played the most important part. During this period a large number of new castes or sub-castes came into existence. ... Many new occupational castes such as those of the carders, weavers, smiths, fishermen, brewers, oil men, cow-herds, carpenters, etc., came into existence. A new caste known as that of the Kayasthas also appeared. The main function of the Kayasthas was clerical. Probably the Kayasthas came from many castes." [Mahajan, p. 555 ff.]

The role of a Bard: The importance of bards in Rajput period can not be under estimated. The bard, the Bhat or Charan was an important feature of the court life of the Rajputs. He recited the heroic deeds of the ancestors of the Rajputs. He was an important and favoured person, He was the reposiitory of the unwritten history of the clan. He was the undisputed authority on all genealogical matters. He was the registrar of the family's births, deaths and marriages. His verdict was final in setting disputes about the division of ancestral property or of caste and consaguinity in the case of wedlock. The person of the bard was sacrosanct. He acted as a herald in war, and as a pledge for the fulfilment of contracts. If those contracts were broken the bard would commit "Traga" or religious suicide, and thereby bring the most terrible of curses upon the head of the offender.

The difficulty in deciding about origin of Rajputs has been increased on account of the fact that the Brahamanas and these bards have given very lofty pedigrees to the Rajputs. The Rajputs claimed to be the lineal descendants of the Kshatriyas of the Vedic times. They traced their pedigrees from the Sun and the Moon and some of them believed in the theory of Agnikula.

Condition of women in Rajput times: Though we hear of "swayamwara" in Rajput times, which gives an impression of adult marriages, in reality, the age of marriage was growing earlier, as per tenets of Manu Smriti, and child marriages were rampant. This curse goes on even today, and many responsible leaders do not consider it as an evil practice. There were plenty of child widows and the remarriage of a widow was not allowed. The result was that young widows had to live a life of misery. The practice of polygamy was very common. The birth of a daughter was not liked by the Rajputs as it was felt that the father of a girl would have to show himself inferior at the time of her marriage. No wonder, many girls were killed at the time of their birth by or with the connivance of their own prents. The question of women education was unthinkable. The condition of an average woman was deteriorating. She was becoming more and more dependent on her husband or his male relatives.

The Brahmanic authors, poets and bards have not only glorified "Sati", they have glorified the "Jauhar" also, which was a mass suicide in order to escape defilement at the hands of the victor of alien faith. Women were made to believe that this was worse than death. This was most horrible method to preserve the caste, ever seen in India. There are examples in Rajput history when women entered fire to save their honour.

Conditions of upper classes: As of today, agriculture was the main profession of the people. While the poor toiled as free labour for constructions of temples and forts and palaces, for the construction of many irrigation works, reservoirs, tanks, wells and canals in time of famine, scarcity or drought, the condition of upper castes was very good. Mahajan explains:

"... Trade and commerce flourished during the Rajput period. Big cities were linked up with roads. The people were wealthy and prosperous. The fame of their riches invited the cupidity of the Muslim invaders." [Mahajan p. 557]

"The upper classes lived in palatial buildings and enjoyed all kinds of comforts. They had even slaves. There were many festivals and fairs throughout the year. Music, dancing, drama, dice, hunting, chess, etc. were very favorite hobbies. Both men and women put on ornaments, they were fond of various kinds of dresses. ... The upper classes did a lot of drinking. The use of opium and wine was common. The use of betel leaves was popular, ..." [Mahajan, p.557]

Superstitions in Rajput period: About how caste system and brahmin supremacy was destroying the old Buddhist vitality and assimilative power, Mahajan observes: "It has been stated that "the people were kept in ignorances, fed with unwholesome superstition and beguilded with gorgeous and never ending festivals." The Hindus were losing their old assimilative power. They were losing their old vitality. The rigid caste system was making them unprogressive. The dominance of the Brahmanas, both in spiritual and secular matters was doing havoc." [Mahajan, p.557]

Regional Languages flourished: The "Kalivarjya" had made its impact. The country was broken into regions and even a few miles constituted "par desh", a foreign land. The language which originally was Prakrit with slight differences in dialect, spoken by masses throughout the country, got divided into regional languages. These were made stronger and stronger by regional feelings developed by brahmins by creating literature in these languages thus making them even more powerful, though at the same time taking care that their own language, i.e. Sanskrit, over which they retained monopoly, remains same throughout India. Mahajan observes:

"It is to be noted that it was during the Rajput period that vernacular literature made progress. It is rightly contended that the foundation of the modern vernacular languages of India such as Hindi, Gujrati, Marathi and Bengali were laid down in the Rajput period. Poetry was first developed in the vernacular literature of this period. Hemchandra Suri, a great Jain saint, made a great contribution towards our national literature." [Mahajan, p. 559]

Obscene Art flourished: The Rajputs were great builders of temples, for the benefit of Brahmins. Though many are destroyed by Muslims, some are still surviving to show the skill, money and labour spent on creation of them. Unfortunately the later Rajput creations of art are the preservations of sexual obscenity.

"... The art critics divide the evolution of temple architecture in the Rajput period into two parts, The first part covered the period from 600 to 900 A.D. During the first period, there was a regular progress in the abundance of ornamentation in temple architecture. The originality of the ancient times was lost and the artisans relied on volume to give an expression of grandeur. Their tastes degenerated and we come across obscene figures. That was probably due to the influence of Tantrism on Hinduism. It has rightly been said that there is no beauty of original art in the architectural monuments of the age." [Mahajan, p. 559]

Ranas of Mewar too: Also some tribal chiefs were among those who became the Rajputs. Giving example of House of Mewar which played important role in political and military history of India for centuries to come, and gave heroes like Bapa Raval, Rana Sanga, and Rana Pratap, Stella Kramerish observes: "Formerly they (Bhils) ruled over their own country. This was prior to the arrival or Rajputs. The Rajputs, the 'sons of king', invaded the country, subsequently Rajasthan in about sixth century A. D. They became Ksatriyas, the nobility par excellence of India. Some of these Rajput princes, including the most exalted of them, the Rana of Mewar, at the inception of their rule, had their foreheads marked with the blood of a Bhil. It was drawn from his thumb or big toe. This was an acknowledgement of the precedence of Bhils as rulers of the country". [24]

Southern India: In Southern India, the rite performed for purification, convertion, and initiation into awarding Ksatriyahood was called "Hiranya-garbhs mahadana" and the king was designated as Hiranya- garbha-prasuta, i.e. "one who performed the sacred rite of hiranya-garbha which consists in the performer passing through an egg of gold which was afterwards distributed among the officiating priests". [25]

The Hiranya garbha prasuta kings of South India belong to the following dynasties,

1. Ananda gotra connected with Chezarla
2. Vishnukundin connected with Srisaila
3. Chalukyas
4. Pandyas
5. Rashtrakutas

Andhra Desha - Ananda Kings: Pallavas of Kanchi conquered heart of Andhra country around end of third century. The area around Guntur was freed from Pallavas by the dynasty of kings called "Ananda gotra". Only three kings are known from inscriptions; they are 1. Kandra, 2. Attivarman, and 3. Damodarvarman. Different dates, from 290 to 630 A.D., have been ascribed to these kings by different scholars. King Kandara was founder of city of Kandarapura, identified with modern Chezarla in Guntur District.

Damodarvarman, who is regarded predecessor of Attivarman, was devotee of Samyak Sambuddha. The Kapoteswara temple at Chezarla of fourth century was a originally a chaitya hall later converted into a brahmanic temple. He is described as son of king who performed Hiranyagarbha mahadana. Attivarman, worshiper of Sambhu, performed this mahadana. [D. C. Sarkar, 'Classical age' p.202 ff.]

Vihnukundins - Srisailam: Their original home was Venukonda, 60 miles east of Srisaila hills, giving them the name. They were worshipers of god "Shriparvata Swamin". Whether it is identified with Srisailam Mallikarjuna Siva can not be certain.

As a matter of fact, Sriparvata has been identified with a Buddhist site Nagarjun Konda. Whether it is identified with Srisailam or Nagarjun Konda, in either way it denotes Buddhist origin.

In his own charters, Madhava Varman I is credited with having performed Hiranygarbha mahadana. He was great patron of learning. He is referred to in the Arya Manjushri Mulkalpa as Madhava. [26]

Shri K. R. Srinivasan has confirmed that what is now known as Anantasayangudi cave temple in Undavali was a temple of Vishnukundin times and originally a Buddhist temple which was converted to a Vishnu temple. [p. 33 and 81, 'Temples of South India']

Chalukyas of Badami: Imperial Chalukyas of Badami (Bijapur district) reigned over vast areas for about two centuries. They were indigenous people, claiming status of Ksatriyas. Hiuen Tsang refers to Pulakesin II as Ksatriya. The Badami inscription of Chalukya Vallebheswara, i.e Pulakesin I, of 543 A.D., represents the monarch as "Hiranya garbha prasuta". So also do the records of his son Mangalesha's times. [27]

It is interesting to note that later inscriptions try to connect the dynasty to Manu or Moon and associates it with Ayodhya, though all such claims are myths. [28]

Swami Dharmatirtha observes: "In the Deccan the Buddhist Kings were superseded by a Rajput dynasty, the Chalukyas, who were protagonists of Brahmanism. The fourth king of this line Pulkesi I destroyed the monastery at Amaravati and abolished Buddhism in those parts. He performed Ashwamedha Yajna and other sacrifices; grants of lands were made to the brahmanas; temples were built; worship of Siva in the terrible form of Kapaleswara was made popular." [29]

The Pandyas: We know the Kalabharas, the Buddhist kings, had convulsed the affairs in Tamil country. They were defeated by Kondugan Pandya, (c. 590-620 A.D.) who is considered as the founder of Pandya dynasty. Huen Tsang says there were many Buddhist monasteries in ruins but only a few monks.

Arikesari Parankusha Marvarman (c.670-710) was the ruler under whom began the imperial career of Pandyas. He is identified with Kun Pandya who was converted from Jainism to Saivism by saint Sambandar who cruelly persecuted the Jains. According to the story, 8000 Jains were impaled on stakes. Chola queen had invited Saint Sambadar to Madura.

Marvarman Rajsimha I, was a powerful ruler, (c. 740-765) who defeated Chalukyas and married a Western Ganga princess. The famous Velvikudi grant of his son Nedunjadaiyan mentions that Rajsimha had made many mahadanas, gosahasras, hiranya-garbhas and tulabharas. [30]

Rashtrakutas - Dantidurga: Formerly a feudatory of Chalukya, Dantidurga was the founder of Rastrakuta dynasty, a strong, aggresive and militant supporter of Brahmanism. Cave XV at Ellora called Dasavtara, which has a long undated inscription of Dantidurga carved on its entrance, was originally a Buddhist Vihara, which was converted to Brrahmanic Temple, by chiseling out Buddhist images. [31]

Dantidurga is reported, in a later record, to have performed Hiranyagarbha at Ujjayini in which "kings such as Gurjara lord and others were made door-keepers" [32]

Persecution of Buddhists was maximum during Rajput period: The persecution of Buddhists was started by the brahmins long time back. The authority of Brahmins over the masses was tremendous. Masses following Buddhist tenets was a great danger to Brahmin supremacy. They had tried to sabotage Buddhist sangha and Asoka had to drive away sixty thousands of fake bhikus. Real persecution of Buddhists had started at the time of Pushyamitra Shunga, who burnt monasteries and killed many monks.

Persecution by Mihirgula was so horrible, that he was declared by Brahmins to be an avatar of "Kalanki", the tenth avatar of Vishnu, which now they say is yet to come. He built big temples for the benefit of Brahmins and wiped out all Buddhist monasteries.

The Dark Age of India:

All this had happened before the Brahmins brought in the Rajputs. But there was some life left in Buddhism, the religion of masses. This was wiped out during the Rajput period. this period was the "Dark Age" of India. Mentioning about this period, Swami Dharmateertha rightly observes:

"But so long as India had at least a glimmer of national life and freedom, she made incessant efforts to assert her self-respect and thwart Brahman tyranny and it was only when the country ultimately fell a victim into the hands of foreigners the Buddhism was crushed to death and Brahmanism spread its fangs over the prostrate people.

He quotes R. C. Dutt who says: "For it was in the Dark Age that religious persecution began in India. Monasteries were demolished, monks were banished, and books were burnt: and wherever the Rajputs became rulers, Buddhist edifices went down and Hindu temples arose. By the end of the 10th century, Buddhism was practically stamped out from India, and the work of destruction was completed by the Muslims who succeeded the Rajputs as masters of India." [33]

Swami Dharma Teertha further avers: "So complete was the destruction that modern antiquarians and historians who have gathered Buddhist sacred books from all parts of Asia have not succeeded in gleaning any valuable text from India. [34]]

Why did Brahmins need the Rajputs?: We find in the history of India, king after king came into power by brahmin help, but got disgusted by the tyranny of Brahmins and accepted Buddhism. Brahmins had to find another usurper or invader to replace him. They already had acquired legal and religious right to kill the unwanted king through Manu. Explaining how Brahmins frequently used Indian usurpers and even foreign invaders as an instrument of enforcement of Brahmanism over masses, Swami Dharma Teertha observes:

"... These unpatriotic and some times treacherous methods were also sought to be justified by the philosophy of Puranas. ..." [35]

Chandragupta Maurya, came to power by help of a clever Brahmin, Kautilya. They tried to invite Alexander to invade Magadha. Chandragupta's empire grew but his grandson Asoka became devout Buddhist and all plans of Brahmins were foiled. So they brought in Pushyamitra and later Kanva kings. But another rising Indian people, the Satvahanas, who were patrons of Buddhism, foiled their designs. So Brahmins carved out a kingdom for Wema-Kadphises II, who worshipped Brahmanic gods. The next king Kanishka was initially under brahmanic influence but later on when he became enthusiastic patron of Sangha, he was killed by smothering to death in his bed by a pillow.

King of Kashmir Jayapira, who trusted Kayastha ministers, was killed. King Nahapana in Saurashtra was helped to revolt against Magadha. He helped Brahmins but later refused to become puppets of Brahmins and also patronized Buddhism along with Brahmanism..

After Kingdom of Magadha under Satvahanas broken down, Brahmins managed to bring Gupta reign, and thus started "a long period of Brahmanical supremacy, huge horse sacrifices, and the revival of Sanskrit" [36]

During Gupta period Brahmins consolidated their gains, temple worship was started in place of Vedic religion, Puranas were edited and reedited, caste system, the "most deadly weapon of imperialistic domination ever invented by human brain" was started to "effectively divide them into groups and prevent their rising against their oppressors", temple worship was started which was "another instrument in the scheme of priests to exploit the people". They had to make some changes in their religion but as Swami Dharma Teertha observes:

"Brahmanism has never stood for any religious doctrine or faith. Its life and soul, then, as it is now, was the Caste System with the Brahmin as the highest sacredotal caste, and its vital interest was priestly exploitation." These objects were achieved to a great extent before Gupta age. Then why did they need the Rajputs? Swami Dharma Teertha observes:

"Though all these things were accomplished in the Gupta period, there was yet no guarantee that Brahman predominance would be upheld by succeeding rulers, and without the king's support it could not be maintained. Repeated experience had shown that though new kings, in order to obtain Brahman co-operation to establish their power, often yielded to the wishes of the latter, no self-respecting ruler would long tolerate the yoke of Brahmanism. Indian kings almost invariably, encouraged Buddhism side by side with Brahmanism, even when they had been raised to power with the help of Brahmans. Brahmanism could therefore be permanently established only with the disappearance of Buddhism and also of all Indian rulers, Its security lay in the revival of a race of Kshatriya princes who would submit to the Brahmanas the highest caste and whose primary concern would be exploitation of the country the common platform on which priestly imperialism could join hands with foreign imperialism. It happened exactly like this. The Brahmans did not rest until they succeeded in handing over the nation to a new race of Kshatriyas, the Rajputs whom they raised to Kshatriya hood for the purpose and who in a few centuries enslaved the country first to debasing priest craft, and then to Mohammedan fanaticism. [37]

Harshavardhana was a staunch supporter of Buddhism, along with Brahmanism. At the time of visit of Huen Tsang, Brahmins tried to kill Harsha. As a result, five hundred Brahmins, it is said, were banished from the kingdom. This temporary setback did not deter the Brahmins. After the death of Harsha, Brahmins got their opportunity. As Havel expressed,:

"It was therefore to be expected that orthodox Brahmanism would seize the opportunity of Harsha's death to reassert its political supremacy in Aryavrata." [38]

Chinese mission who visited in response to Harsha's complementary mission, was insulted by the minister of Harsha who had usurped the throne. This infuriated the Chinese leader and getting help from Tibet, he overran Magadha and the Brahman king of Assam helped Chinaman with large supplies of military equipment and cattle, thus finishing the mighty Buddhist kingdom of Harsha. This was the opportunity for the Brahmins to assert their dominance. Swami Dharma Teertha observes:

"The empire having been broken up, the Brahmans took the opportunity to invite foreign adventurers to support their cause. The Rajputs appear on the scene as the valiant protectors of Brahmanism. Historians do not know definitely the origin of the Rajputs, but all are agreed in believing that they were the descendants of some of the foreign invaders. That they were raised to power by the Brahmans is admitted in the legend of the Puranas. It says that they were the descendants of four warriors conjured into existence by the sage Vasishta from the sacrificial fire he kindled on Mount Abu. In plain language they were a new people raised to Kshatriyahood by the Brahmans in order that they might reestablish Brahmanism in the land.

"Everywhere they favourd Puranic Hinduism, and the Brahmans rewarded them for their toil, and reorganized the new race as the Kshatriyas of modern time." [39]

"Whatever the origin of the Rajputs may be, there is no doubt that they were newcomers within the pale Hindu civilization and religion. Like all new converts they were fired with an excessive zeal to revive the religion they embraced. Brahmans worked on the zeal of this new race of Kshatriyas and the Chohan and the Rathore vindicated their claims to be regarded as Kshatriyas by established the supremacy, of the Brahmans." [40]

Rajput age was a Dark Age for masses of India:

Swami Dharma Teertha narrates the further story in these words: "With the help of the Rajputs who became powerful in all parts of India, Brahmanism entered on a career of merciless extirpation of Buddhism, and with it of nationalism. The avenues of light and information were all closed, From the 8th to the 10th century an impenetrable darkness enveloped Northern India. History refuses to disclose the nature of the happenings of that terrible darkness. As in the Dark Age which followed the Mahabharata War, so under the cover of this frightful oblivion, Brahmanism did its work thoroughly monasteries were demolished, monks were banished or killed, books were burnt, Buddhism was stamped out; nationalism was crushed. The country fell into the hands of Rajput barons, soon to be followed by the Mohammedan invaders who completed the work of annihilation. Rajputana became a congeries of rival states, each with its own chief, war loving and constantly quarreling with each other." [41]

"There could be hardly any doubt that Rajput rule was an undiluted military imperialism, a coalition of Kashtriya exploiters and insatiable Brahman priests, in which the people were fleeced to amass wealth for palaces and temples. In an incredibly short time huge temples requiring the labour of many thousands of workmen, generally slaves or prisoners, and involving fabulous expenditure, were built all over the country; the secret cells of temples were filled with gold and silver and other treasures beyond description. Hundreds of dancing girls with all the temptations of music and decoration served in the temples to complete the vices of priest craft. The kings surrounded themselves with all imaginable pomp, luxury and vice. Nobody cared for the people; we hear nothing of the people when the Mohammedan invaders made their incursion in to the big cities and temples for plunder of the accumulated treasures. The princes kept quarreling among themselves for wealth and women. The Brahmans were sunk deep in the temptations of the temple. We see Mohammedans marching through the country hundreds of miles without anybody opposing them, appearing before the gates of cities and temples, before the authorities got any information, and loaded with rich booty returning unmolested over vast tracts of inhabited area. There seemed to be no government in the land.

"The despotic nature of the regime could be noticed also in the employment by Rajput rulers of large bodies of Mohammedan mercenaries. It was so in Vijayanager too. another Brahman dominated empire. Both in North India and in Vijayanager, the presence of Mohammedan troops in the heart of the Hindu kingdoms, in the employed and confidence of their rules, facilitated the final success of the Mohammedans. What was worse, the soldiers of Islam were invited to invade India, and there were Rajput princes to help them in their conquest of the country. The four chief royal houses of North India were Delhi, Chittor, Kanouj and Gujrat. The last two kings sided with Mohammedans until they became undisputed masters of the situation. Raja Jaichand of Kanouj is said to have invited Shahabuddin to attack Prithvi Raj of Delhi. [Lala Sundar Dass, "Decline and fall of Hindu Empire", p. 25] India fell betrayed by her own princes and priests who were no more interested in the unity, strength and prosperity of the Indian masses then the Mohammedan or the European conquerors.[ p.n.121 ]

The Ruling Class: Swami Dharma Teertha explains how the fate of any country usually depends on the character of its Ruling Class. Even in democratic countries, the rise and fall, the progress and decadence of the nation depends to a great extent on the ideals which animate the policy and conduct of this class. In India, this class is the Brahmins. Swami observes: "From days immemorial, the Brahmans have been the undoubted aristocrats of India, the leaders of the people, the custodians of religious and secular learning, unrivaled politicians and administrators, and owners of wealth and power, besides being the trustees of the peoples conscience as priests. Probably no other class of persons in any society ever combined in themselves all these advantages so exclusively as the Brahmans. It is equally doubtful if any other aristocratic class has ever exercised their privileges to the detriment of the common people so unscrupulously and for so long a period as these Hindu priests.

"For an understanding of the causes which have brought India to her present condition no study is more important than that of the policy and doctrines of the Brahmans." [42]

Brahmins were benefited by Muslim Conquest: There is a lot of propaganda, that Muslim period was a foreign rule over Indian masses, who were crushed under the foreign yoke. All this is a great and fake propaganda by the brahmanical scholars. Actually, it was this class who got the maximum benefits of Muslim raj. Here we have to remember that India has triple governance. Governance at the village and town level, second is regional level and top most is national level. The local level governance is the actual governance. In India it makes no difference, who ruled at the top, at the local levels it was the Brahmins who always ruled. And their rule was as per the Laws of caste. Swami Dharma Teertha observes: "The disappearance of Buddhism and the passing of political power into the hands of the Mohammedans, though they meant the extermination of national life, was a triumph for Brahmanism. ... in the period of national prostration and political chaos roughly from the eight to the twelfth century after Christ, there is a phenomenal revival, expansion and consolidation of the theocratic domination of the Brahmans. One prominent result of the invasion of India by the Mohammedans was that, so far as Hindu society was concerned, Brahmans became its undisputed leaders and law givers.

"After the overthrow of the Hindu princes by the Mohammedans, the Hindu princes and chiefs lost a good deal of their prestige, but the leadership of the Hindus instead of passing into the new political authority, namely Mohammedan rulers, passed almost entirely to the brahmans." [43]

"There were no powerful Indian rulers to question their right to decide what should be or should not be the religion of the people, and by what principles their social life should be governed. When the Mohammedans had overcome all opposition and settled down as rulers, unless some of them were fanatically inclined to make forcible conversions, they left the Hindus in the hands of their religious leaders and whenever they wanted to pacify them by quiet methods, they made use of Brahmans as their accredited representatives.

"Another great advantage was that, for the first time in history, all the peoples of India, of all sects and denominations, were brought under the supremacy of the Brahmans. Till then they had claimed to be priest of the three higher castes only and did not presume to speak for the Sudras and other Indian peoples except to keep them at a safe distance. The Mohammedans called all the non-Muslims inhabitants, without any discrimination, by the common name "Hindu", which practically meant non-Muslims and nothing more. This simple fact contributed to the unification of India more than any other single event, but also, at the same time, condemned the dumb millions of the country to perpetual subjection to their priestly exploiters. Indians became "Hindus," their religion became Hinduism and Brahmans their masters.

"The word Hindu itself is a foreign one. The Hindus never used it in any Sanskrit writing, that is those which were written before the Mohammedan invasion." [44]

"When the Mohammedans came they called all people who were in India, but who did not belong to Mohammedan religion, Hindus.... All castes and creeds which did not acknowledge Mohammedan religion were Hindus." [45]

"Thus was the Indian people by an innocent accident of history, permanently subjected to a disastrous social and religious in the shaping of which they had no hand and could thereafter obtain no voice, but were entirely at the mercy of the Brahmans. Brahmanism became Hinduism, that is the religion of all who were not followers of the prophet of Mecca. Fortified thus in an unassailable position of sole religious authority, Brahmans commenced to establish their theocratic overlordship of all India." [Swami Dharma Teertha, pp. 123 ff.]

What did they do first?: Swami Dharma Teertha explains the activities of Brahmins after they captured the power. It was creation of shastras to suit newer conditions. He observes: "One of the first signs of Brahmanical revival, as in the past, was the promulgation of new Shastras, Puranas and other religious literature alleged to be the works of ancient sages. The priests must have been conscious of the untenability of their doctrines and their own unworthiness to lay down rules for the good of society, for they wrote new works in the name of ancient authors and altered ancient works to suit their present contentions.

Brahmanic methods of Conversion: H. H. Risley has given a vivid description of methods of social control and mimesis of Brahmins over the Indian masses, which deserved to be quoted in toto.:

"Brahmanism knows noting of open proselytism or forcible conversion, and attains its end in a different and more subtle fashion, for which no precise analogue can be found in the physical world. It leaves existing aggregates very much as they were, and so far from welding them together, after the manner of Islam, into large cohesive aggregates, tends rather to create an indefinite number of fresh groups; but every tribe that passes within the charmed circle of Hinduism is inclined sooner or later to abandon its more primitive usages or to clothe them in some Brahmanical disguise. The strata, indeed, remain, or are multiplied; their relative positions are on the whole unaltered; only their fossils are metamorphosed into more advanced forms.

"One by one the ancient totems drop off, or are converted by a variety of ingenious devices into respectable personages of the standard mythology; the fetish gets a new name, and is promoted to the Hindu Pantheon in the guise of a special incarnation of one of the greater gods; the tribal chief sets up a family priest, starts a more or less romantic family legend, in course of time blossoms forth as a new variety of Rajput. His people follow his lead, and make haste to sacrifice their women at the shrine of social distinction. Infant marriage with all its attendant horrors is introduced; widows are forbidden to marry again and divorce, which plays a great and, on the whole, a useful part in tribal society, is summarily abolished. Throughout all these changes, which strike deep into the domestic life of people, the fiction is maintained that no real change has taken place, and every one believes, or affects to believe, that things are with them as they have been since the beginning of time. It is curious to observe that the operation of these tendencies has been quickened, and the sphere of their action enlarged by the great expansion of railways which has taken place in India during the last few years."

"The leading men of an aboriginal tribe, having somehow got on in the world and became independent landed proprietors manage to enroll themselves in one of the leading castes, They usually set up as Rajputs; their first step being to start a Brahman priest, who invents for them a mythical ancestor supplies them with a family miracle connected with the locality where their tribe are settled, and discovers that they belong to some hitherto unheard-of clan of the great Rajput community. In the early stages of their advancement they generally find great difficulty in getting their daughters married, as they will not marry within their own tribe, and Rajputs of their adopted caste will of course not intermarry with them. But after a generation or two their persistency obtains its reward, and they intermarry, if not with pure Rajputs, at least with a superior order of manufactured Rajputs, whose promotion into the Brahmanical system dates far enough back for the steps by which it was gained to have been forgotten. Thus a real change of blood takes place; while in any case the tribal name is completely lost, and with it all possibility of accurately separating this class of people from the Hindus of purer bloods, and of assigning them to any particular non-Aryan tribe. They have absorbed in the fullest sense of the word, and henceforth pose, and are locally accepted, as high-caste Hindus. All stages of the process, family miracle and all can be illustrated by actual instances from the leading families in Chota Nagpur.

"A number of aborigines embrace the tenets of a Hindu religious sect, losing thereby their tribal name and becoming Vaishnabs, Ramayats, and the like. Whether there is any mixture of blood or not will depend upon local circumstances and the rules of the sect regarding inter- marriage. Anyhow the identity of the converts as aborigines is usually, though not invariably, lost, and this also may therefore be regarded as a case of true absorption."

"A whole tribe of aborigines, or a large section of a tribe, enroll themselves in the ranks of Hinduism under the style of a new caste, which though claiming an origin of remote antiquity, is readily distinguishable by its name from any of the standard and recognized castes. Thus the great majority of Koch inhabitants of Rungpore now invariably describe themselves as Rajbanshis or Bhanga Kshatriyas - a designation which enable them to represent themselves as an outlying branch of the Kshatriyas who fled to North-Eastern Bengal in order to escape from the wrath of Parasu-Rama. They claim descent from Raja Dashrath, father of Rama. They keep Brahmans, imitate the Brahmanical ritual in their marriage ceremony, and have begun to adopt the Brahmanical system of gotras. In respect of this last point they are now in a curious state of transition, as they have all hit upon the same gotra (Kasyapa), and thus habitually transgress the primary rule of the Brahmanical system, which absolutely prohibits marriage within the gotra. But for this defect in their connubial arrangements - a defect which will probably be corrected in a generation or two as they and their purohits rise in intelligence - there would be nothing in their customs to distinguish them from Aryan Hindus, although there has been no mixture of blood, any they remain thoroughly Koch under the name of Rajbanshi.

"A whole tribe of aborigines, or a section of a tribe, became gradually converted to Hinduism without, like the Rajbanshis abandoning their tribal designation. This is what is happening among the Bhumij of Western Bengal. Here a pure Dravidian race have lost their original language, and now speak only Bengali; they worship Hindu gods in addition to their own (tendency being to relegate the tribal gods to the women), and the more advanced among them employ Brahmans as family priests. They still retain a set of totemistic exogamous subdivisions closely resembling those of the Mundas and the Santals, but they are beginning to forget the totems which the names of the subdivisions denote, and the names themselves will probably soon be abandoned in favour of more aristocratic designations. The tribe will then have become a caste, and will go on stripping itself of all customs likely to betray its true descent. The physical characteratics of its members will alone survive. After their transformation into a caste, the Bhumij will be more strictly endogamous than they were as a tribe, and even less likely to modify their physical type by intermarriage with other races."

"There is every reason to suppose that the movement of which certain phases are roughly sketched above, has been going on for many centuries, and that, although at the present day its working can probab Foreigners were assimilated by Buddhist ideals and not the Brahmanic

Some brahmanic scholrs try to glorify their religion by boasting that Sakas Kusanas Hunas and other foreigners have disappeared leaving no trace, wheras Brahmanism still persists. Dr. Ambedkar had mentioned that mere survival is not the evidence of greatness. The level of survival was very low. Whereas, Shri L. M. Joshi avers that the assimilation of foreigners into Indian society took place not because of Brahmanism but because of the tenets of Buddhism which preached equality, liberty and brotherhood in the following words:

"Another aspect of Buddhist contribution in ancient India lay in the area of social harmony and racial integration on a national scale, It was through Buddhist influence and teaching of social harmony and tolerance that foreign invaders such as the Greeks, Sakas, Pahlavas, Kusanas and Hunas who came to India and settled here in the course of centuries immediately preceding and following the Christian era, were assimilated by Indian society. This was a permanent contribution to social integration and national growth and it could not have been so easily accomplished in a strictly Brahmanical scheme of social gradation without the wholesome effects of the Buddhist disregard for varna- organization and respect for the liberty of the individual."

Hindu Muslim Conflict would not have be there if Buddhism was alive at the time of Muslim invasion.

Not only that but he laments that the assimilation of Muslims could not be done into Indian society, beause of the feeling of supremacy of their caste that was practiced by the Brahmins of those days. He further says:

"We are of the view that had Buddhism been a living force at the time of the Turkish invasions, the problems of Hindu- Muslim communal discord in medieval and modern India would not have taken such a strong turn as they did. Because of the revival of the traditional Brahmanical social scheme, reinforced with fresh religious injunctions, and because of the decline of Buddhism in India after the tenth century A.D., the mass of early medieval early Islamic followers in India could not be assimilated and digested by Indian Society. Arnold J. Toynbee has rightly remarked that, "If either Buddhism or Jainism ha succeeded in captivating the Indic world, caste might have got rid of. As it turned out, however, the role of universal church in the last chapter of Indic decline and fall was played by Hinduism, a parvenu archaistic syncretism of things new and old; and one of the old things to which Hinduism gave new lease was caste." [46]

When was first time Rajput mentioned in Chauhan Inscriptions?

XVI Lalrai Stone Inscription of Kelhanadeva S.V.1233 (1176 AD) (See:Chahamans of Marwar)

This Inscription first time writes Rajaputra in 1176 AD.

The record is dated on the 3rd of the bright half of Vaisakha in the [Vikrama] year 1233, and speaks of the princes (rajaputra) Lakhanapala and Abhayapala as the proprietors (bhoktri) of Samnanaka (cf. No. XV). It then states that Bhivada, Asadhara, and other cultivators granted for their spiritual merit, four seis of barley-corn from, (the field called) Khadisira to the od Samtinatha in connection with the festival of the Gujars.

Lalrai Shantinath Temple Inscription of 1176 AD

Sanskrit Text
"संवत 1233 वैशाख सुदी 3 सनाणक भोक्ता राजपुत्र लाखणपाल राजपुत्र अभयपाल तस्मिन् राज्ये वर्तमाने चा. भीवडा पडि देहबसी सू. आसाधर समस्त सीर सहितै खाड़ी जबं मध्यात् जावा से 4 गूजरी जात्रा निमित्तं श्री शांतिनाथ देवस्य दत्ता तथा भड़िया उअ अरहटे आसाधर सीरोइय समस्त सीरण जवा हरीथु 1 गूजरतु-या त्राहि वील्हस्य पुण्यार्थ"
Lalrai Shantinath Temple Inscription of 1176 AD[47]

लालराई शांतिनाथ मंदिर का लेख 1176 ई.

इस लेख के बारे में डॉ. गोपीनाथ [48] लिखते हैं की इसमें आस-पास के गाँवों की खाड़ी से (भंडार) जव तथा अरहट से पैदावार का गूजरी यात्रा निमित्त देने का उल्लेख है. यह लेख स्थानीय भाषा के शब्दों को जैसे 'तुहार' (त्यौहार) संस्कृत में प्रयोग किया गया है. यहाँ राजपूत शब्द के लिए राजपुत्र शब्द का प्रयोग किया गया है. इसका मूल पाठ साथ के बाक्स में है.

Why Jats left Rajput Federation ?

From XXIII Jalor Stone Inscription of Samantasimhadeva S.V. 1353 (See:Chahamans of Marwar)

Soni people are mentioned as Thakurs. It may be due to many clans and castes joined to form the Chauhan Federation. It is a well-known fact that many Rajput tribes, for avoiding Muhammadan oppressions and so forth, became Jainas, and merged themselves into the Bania classes. Similarly Jats who had joined Chauhan Federation also came back and became again Jats. [49]

We were searching how and why Jat clans separated from Rajput Federation. Earlier historians have included all Jat kings also in Rajputs. So we have to find the cut off line of separation.[50]

Ancestors of Ranas of Mewar

James Tod in Annals of Mewar writes about the ancestors of Ranas of Mewar:

1. Various authors, borrowing from the same source, have assigned the seat of Porus to the Rana's family. The translator of the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea, following D'Anville, makes Ozene (Ujjain) the capital of a Porus, who sent an embassy to Augustus to regulate their commercial intercourse, and whom he asserts to be the ancestor of the Rana. (Annals of Mewar: p.248-249)

2. At least ten genealogical lists, derived from the most opposite sources, agree in making Kanaksen the founder of this dynasty ; and assign his emigration from the most northern of the provinces of India to the peninsula of Saurashtra in S. 201, or A.D. 145. (Annals of Mewar: p.251)

3. James Tod comments that Sen means, 'army'; kanak means, 'gold.' so Kanaksen is entirely mythical. It has been suggested that the name is a reminiscence of the connexion of the great Kushan Emperor, Kanishka, with Gujarat and Kathiawar. (Annals of Mewar, p.252,fn-3)

4. The tract about Valabhipura and northward is termed Bal, probably from the tribe of Bala, which might have been the designation of the Rana's tribe prior to that of Grahilot ; and most probably Multan, and all these regions of the Kathi, Bala, etc., were dependent on Lohkot (Lahore), whence emigrated Kanaksen ; thus strengthening the surmise of the Scythic descent of the Ranas. (Annals of Mewar: p.254)

5. Gibbon, quoting De Guignes, mentions one in the second century, which fixed permanently in the Saurashtra peninsula ; and the latter, from original authorities, describes another of the Getae or Jats, styled by the Chinese Yueh-chi, in the north of India. (Annals of Mewar: p.256)

Note - We know that Porus was a Jat since this clan still exists in Jats. Kanaksen is identified with Kanishka who again is considered to be of Jat origin of Kaswan clan. That means the Ranas of Mewar were of Jat Origin ? They fabricated later on genealogies to link with Rama.

We have wikified the Annals of Mewar on Jatland here - http://www.jatland.com/home/Annals_of_Mewar

Rajput in Rajatarangini

Rajatarangini[51] describes the Murder of the King Uchchala (b.1070,r.1101–1111): The king addressed him and said, " I have forgiven Bhogasena why are you then hero." He replied, abashed to the fleeing king something indistinctly. Rayyāvaṭṭa, the torch-bearer, who was without weapon, went into the fight with his iron lamp and fell wounded by the rebels. Somapala, a Rajpoot, son of Champa, was wounded and fell covered with the blows he received. His behaviour was not censurable Majjaka, a Rajpoot, son of Shurapala, fled hiding his weapon, like a dog hiding his tail. The king ran towards a wooden fence intending to scale it, but the Chandalas cut him in the knee and he fell on the ground. One Shringara, a Kayastha, who was not a rebel, threw himself over the king's body, was severely beaten and was prevented from , protecting the king. (VIII,p.28)

Rajatarangini[52] tells that when Sussala becomes king second time in 1121 The Rajpoot Kahlana, son of Sahadeva, collected the Damaras who were at Kramarajya and advanced towards the king. The same Vimba who was the first to leave Sussala's army to go over to Bhikshu, now left Bhikshu and joined Sussala. (VIII,p.79)

Rajatarangini[53] tells us....At the time of Murder of the king Sussala in 1127 AD, Sahajapala, the ornament of the line of Bhavuka, of superior prowess among the spiritless servants of the king, ran with sword and shield ; and when the rebels saw him, they went out by a side way. But this powerful man was wounded by their servants, and he fell on the ground. The shame of the Rajpoots was washed by his blood. The learned Nona went before them, and though a native of the country, resembled the Rajpoots in person, and so they mistook him for Rajpoot and killed him. When the soldiers saw the rebels go towards the village unwounded, they did not pursue them in anger, but remained stationary like painted figures. The fat bodied Rajpoots, beloved of the king, kept themselves quiet, and crowded in the courtyard which was a while ago deserted. It has been a burden to us to speak of these cowardly men from the time of king Harsha of Kashmir. We dare not pronounce the names of these sinful men through fear of contamination with their sins, and out of grief. Thinking it an act of great manliness to walk from the courtyard to the house, some of the principal men among these sinful people went to see their murdered master. They saw the king, his teeth pressed on his lower lip over which the blood was issuing and which seemed to be quivering, as if the king was giving utterance to his grief at his being deceived. (VIII (i),p.114)

Rajatarangini[54] tells us ...At the time of Murder of the king Sussala in 1127 AD, They (Rajputs) did not do anything befitting the occasion; they only said " enjoy the fruit of being alone ;" and thus reproached him. They did not take him on horse or on carriage, nor could they burn him, for they fled to save their own lives. Nor was the body placed by any one afterwards on wood and burnt ; each took one of king's horses and fled ; and the soldiers, as they went into villages, were plundered by the Damaras. On the way which was covered with snow, neither sons protected their fathers, nor fathers saved their sons, whether they died or were killed or plundered. There was no warrior who thought of his dignity when menaced by his enemies on the road, and did not cast away his clothes and arms. But three died bravely. They were Lavaraja and Yashoraja, two Brahmanas who were well up in gymnastics, and Kāndaraja. Utpala and others saw from the neighbourhood, the soldiers thus fleeing and they entered the house, cut off the head of the king and took it away. When they had gone to Devasarasa, the headless king, like a murdered thief, became an object of sight to the villagers. Thus in the year 3, in the month of phalguna, on the day of the new moon, was the king killed by treason, at the age of 55 years. (VIII (i),p.115)

Rajatarangini[55] tells us ... Much snow had fallen by this time, which benumbed Bhikshu's large army when he arrived on the skirts of the city (capital.) Taking advantage of this opportunity, Panchachandra, son of Garga, with a large army, came to the king who was then without soldiers. Panchachandra had set out with the Rajpoots to fight in order to expiate his sin for deserting his deceased master. [VIII (i),p.119]

Rajatarangini[56] tells us ... The king with a view to capture the fort sent the Pratihara with the feudatory chiefs, the Damaras, the ministers and the Rajpoots. (VIII (i), p.146)

Rajatarangini[57] tells us ...Udaya, lord of Kampana, waited before the king, and then went after the prime minister, the Pratihara. The army consisted of the Rajputs, and the Damara horsemen and was led by ministers, and accompanied by troops who looked terrible in their arms. A part of the force which was within the palace (at Lohara) surrounded a large tract of country and tried to seize the enemy. Lalla , and others remained at Phullapura adjoining Kotta, and made the enemy's soldiers tremble by spreading alarm and dissension among them, and also by skirmishes. (VIII (i) ,p.161)

Rajatarangini[58]tells....Sussala's plan of usurpation: Sussala, though possessed of wealth of all kinds, planned the usurpation of the kingdom and meditated an attack on his brother. The king heard all of a sudden that his brother had crossed Varahavartta and had fallen on him with the speed of a hawk. The active king issued out for battle before his opponent could gain a firm footing, and 'ell on him with his large army and did him much harm. The younger brother fled towards his quarters, leaving his baggage behind. The king returned with success but heard that his brother had returned on the following day, bent on mischief. By his orders Gaggachandra marched out with a large army to crush the force of Sussala. The battle raged for a long time and innumerable hardy soldiers of Sussala departed to heaven, and assuaged the fatigue of the women in the garden of that place. In this battle Sahadeva and Yudhishthira, two Rajputs, paid with their lives the debt of favor they owed to their master. Gagga captured the fleeing horsemen of the enemy who rode on beautiful horses which excited the curiosity even of the king who had many horses. The king marched with his army, quickly pursued his brother towards Kramarajya by the way of Selyapura road. Thus pursued by his elder brother, Sussala with his handful followers entered the country of Darad. The king killed Loshtaka, the Damara inhabitant of Selyapura, because he gave passage to Sussala, and entered the city Selyapura. When Sussala had gone far away, the king though polluted with sins, did not try to possess the hills of Lohara out of love for his brother. Sussala was married to the pure Meghamanjari, daughter of Vijayapala. She had lost her father and had been affectionately brought up by her mother's father Kahla, king of Kalindara, as his own child. Such was the power of Sussala that though it was then winter yet his enemies at Lohara could not oppose him. (VIII (ii),p.17-18)

Rajatarangini[59]tells....At this time Alankarachakra was also struck with fear, and he cried out: — ."Where art thou O! Rajaputra," and swiftly fled from Dashagrama. At night fall, the sound of trumpet bespoke an attack, and the noise of the soldiers rose from the village. Bhoja, invisible in darkness, fled ; and Alankarachakra busied himself in making preparations for the battle on the next day. (VIII (ii),p.269)

Rajatarangini[60]tells....Bhoja sent a lady named Kalhaṇīkā whom Bhoja thought of making, a mediator between him and the king. She journeyed on foot till she reached the frontier. For her protection, Bhoja gave much wealth, and the wealth was kept in the centre of the party. For her expenses on the road, he gave much money in which gold predominated ; and he sent her with eight well-born Rajputs to serve her, and with every mark of royalty. (p.283)

Rajatarangini[61]tells....The king thinks that This princess and these Rajputs bespeak the loss of dignity ; and she is so simple that she cannot see through any object clearly. (p.284)

Rajatarangini[62]tells.... At the time when the king stayed at Taramulaka, Dhanya and Rilhana accompanied with armies and Rajputs went to Pānchigrāma. (p.288)

Rajatarangini[63]tells.... In order to prevent the destruction of the Damaras, Bhoja sent letters with a small detachment of foreigners under Naga, and a body of Rajputs. (p.291)

Kuthlehar rulers became Rajput from Brahman

Kuthlehar Fort, Una

Situated in the eastern part of the present Una district, as mentioned earlier, Kuthlehar was the smallest of all the Kangra kingdom in olden times. As it consisted of two provinces-Chauki and Kuthlehar, hence the double name by which the State was generally known. The territory of Kuthlehar has been formed by a break in the continuity of the second or Jaswan Chain of the hills. As this ridge approaches the Sutlej, it suddenly divides into two parallel branches; and the valley between them, with a portion of the enclosing hills, is the pretty State of Kuthlehar. The dynasty is one of considerable antiquity. The progenitor of the family was a Brahmin but on acquiring regal he was recognized as Rajput. Mr. G.C. Barnes states that he came from Sambhal, near Moradabad but the family records trace his descent from a Raja of Poona. About the tenth or eleventh century the then head of the family, named Jas Pal, conquered the taluqas of Talhatti and Kuthlehar and fixed his capital at Kot-Kuthlehar. The two small states of Bhajji and koti in the Simla Hills were said to have been founded, by his second son and grand-son. The clan name is Kuthlehria.[64]

राजपूतों के बारे में कैप्टन वेब के विचार

कैप्टन वेब (A.W.T. Webb) - कैप्टन वेब एक क्रूर, अभिमानी किन्तु अनुशासित अफसर माना गया है. इसके पीछे उसके फौजी संस्कार भी जान पड़ते हैं. ऐसा प्रतीत होता है की वह मात्र हुक्म चलाने का आदि था. आन्दोलनकारियों से वह बिलकुल खुश नहीं था. और उन पर गोली चलाना उसके बांयें हाथ का खेल था.(राजेन्द्र कसवा: P. 160)

मि. वेब सबसे पहले तत्कालीन व्यवस्था का एक हिस्सा था. यह तो वह मानता है कि किसान अत्यंत पीड़ित था किन्तु जन आन्दोलन को वह नहीं पचा पाया. ठिकानेदारों-जागीरदारों की अकर्मण्यता, निर्दयता और ऐयाशी के कारण वह उनसे घृणा करता था तो किसान आन्दोलन से भी खुस नहीं था. उसका स्वभाव कुछ ऐसा जान पड़ता है कि यदि वह शांति काल में सीकरवाटी में रहता तो निश्चय ही जनहित के कार्य करता. वह किसानों और ग्रामीण जनता के शोषण से दुखी रहता था. अशिक्षा, धार्मिक पाखंडों, रूढयों, छूअछोत, अंधविश्वासों से निजात दिलाने का कार्य करता, किन्तु आम जन उसके कार्यकाल में अपने अधिकारों के लिए और स्वतंत्रता के लिए उठ खड़ा हुआ था. घमंडी सामंतों और निरीह किसानों, दोनों के लिए वेब समान रूप से अप्रिय साबित हुआ, यही उसके व्यक्तित्व की विशेषता थी. (राजेन्द्र कसवा: P. 163)

सीकर की कहानी- कैप्टन वेब की जुबानी

कैप्टन वेब सीकर में सीनियर अधिकारी के तौर पर 1934 से 1938 तक पांच साल तक रहे. उसका दुर्भाग्य था की ये पांच वर्ष सीकरवाटी में भारी उथल-पुथल के रहे. जन आन्दोलन से चिढ़ने की उसकी अंग्रेज मानसिकता थी. किन्तु वह एक विचारशील व्यक्ति था. उसे समझने के लिए एक छोटी सी पुस्तिका का सहारा लिया जा सकता है, जो उसने स्वयं लिखी थी. इसका हिंदी अनुवाद 'सीकर की कहानी- कैप्टन वेब की जुबानी' नाम से प्रोफ़ेसर भगवान सिंह झाझड़िया एवं गणेश बेरवाल ने किया है. (राजेन्द्र कसवा: P. 160)

राजपूतों के बारे में कैप्टन वेब के विचार -

  • कैप्टन वेब राजपूतों के बारे में लिखते हैं कि यह आश्चर्यजनक नहीं है कि राजपूत जाति भारत में भी सबसे अधिक नफ़रत का पात्र थी. उनसे पीड़ित लोग कहते हैं कि ईश्वर ने छ: बार इस डाकू जाति को दमित किया और सातवां अवसर भी शीघ्र ही आने वाला है. वे आगे कहते हैं कि राजपूतों को याद रखना चाहिय कि चूहों और विजेताओं के लिए दुर्भाग्य से क्षमादान नहीं होता. राजपूत अपने आप को विशिष्ट वर्ग मानते हैं (भगवान सिंह झाझड़िया, p.27) और दूसरी जातियों में जन्म लेने को एक त्रासदी मानते हैं. ....अपने आप तक सीमित होने पर राजपूतों का प्रशासन का तरीका रुखा और सहज है. ब्रिटिश लोगों के आगमन से पूर्व कोई भी राजपूत अपनी जनता की भलाई के बारे में नहीं सोचता था. उसका ध्यान फ़ौज और किसानों से वसूल किये जाने वाले हर एक रुपये पर केन्द्रित था (भगवान सिंह झाझड़िया, p.28) . ...वे अब भी अपने हृदयों में इस विश्वास को गले लगाते हैं कि राजनीती और शासन की कला में विश्वासघात अपरिहार्य तत्व है. (भगवान सिंह झाझड़िया, p.29)
  • जो लोग शताब्दियों से तलवार के डर से उनकी प्रत्येक आवश्यकता की पूर्ती करते रहे अब उनके विरोध में उठ रहे हैं. अब वे दिन लद रहे हैं जब जागीरदार किसानों को जानबूझकर अज्ञान में रखते थे ताकि वे और कठोर परिश्रम करें. राजपूत अब अधिक समय तक सम्पन्नता में नहीं रह सकते. (भगवान सिंह झाझड़िया, p.30)
  • मेरे जैसे लोग जो राजपूत का हित चाहते हैं उन्हें सिर्फ समय न खोने की राय दे सकते हैं कि जीवित वस्तुओं को समय के साथ बदलना चाहिए या वे फिर न उठने के लिए गिर जायेंगे. ...परन्तु जिस व्यवस्था से वे चिपके हैं जिसको उन्होंने अब तक अनिवार्य माना है उसके अलावा जीने के और भी तरीके हैं.(भगवान सिंह झाझड़िया, p.30)

ठाकुर देशराज के अनुसार जाट और राजपूत

राजपूत जिनके कि कुछ समय पहले भारतवर्ष में जाटों से भी अधिक रजवाड़े थे, अपने को जाट-गूजरों की भांति राम और कृष्ण के वंशज होने का दावा पेश करते हैं। उनके राजपूत शब्द की उत्पत्ति के उपर देशी-विदेशी इतिहासकारों के विभिन्न मत हैं। कुछ लोग उन्हें शक और हूणों के उत्तराधिकारी बताते हैं और कुछ जाट, गूजर, भर और ब्राह्मणों में से राजशक्ति प्राप्त करने वाले समूह को ही राजपूत कहते हैं। ऐसे ही विचार वालों का एक हवाला इम्पीरियल गजेटियर से यहां हिन्दी रूपान्तर में उद्धृत करते हैं -

Then between the seventh and tenth, centuries A. D. the old racial divisions passed away and a new division came in founded upon status and function. But of the older divisions too remained at least in theory the Brahmans and Kshatriyas. The Aryan Kshatriyas had long ceased to be a warrior, he was often a distinguished meta physician; and according to a popular legend the whole race was exterminated for disputing with the Brahmans. But the theory still held good that to rule was the business of a Kshatriya and Kshatriya kings were common down to the seventh century A. D. although many of them were probably Sudra-Kshatriyas or like the Turkey kings of Ohind ; not Hindus at all. The place of those Kshatriyas was

जाट इतिहास:ठाकुर देशराज,पृष्ठान्त-113

taken in the middle ages by the clans of Rajputs or sons of kings whom the people called Thakurs or Lords. The rise of Rajputs determined the whole political history of the time. Every tribe which exercised sovereign power or local rule for a considerable period joined itself to them. They recognized no little deeds except their swords, and were constantly seeking for new settlements. They are found every where, from Indus to Bihar, but their original homes were two, Rajputana and the South of Oudh. They made their first appearance in the eighth-ninth centuries; most of the greatest clans took possession of their future seats between A.D. 800 and 850. From Rajputana they entered the Punjab and made their way to Kashmir in the tenth century. About the same time they spread North and East from southern Oudh and during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries they made themselves masters of the central Himaliyas Their origin is a subject of much dispute. None of the Rajput clans are indigenous to the Doab. Now the kingdom of Kanauj was the most potent of all kingdom of Hindustan, and the Doab was the centre of all Aryan population and culture throughout the middle ages. The Rajputs can not therefore be pure Aryans and if we examine the actual origins of the most ancient clans we shall find that they are very mixed. In the Punjab we have reigning Brahman families which became Rajputs. In Oudh Brahmans, Bhars, and Ahirs have all contributed to the Rajput clans, but the majority appear to have been Aryanised Sudras, Of the clans of Rajputana some-like the Chauhans, Solankis and Gahlots-have a foreign origin, others are allied to the Indo-Scythic Jats and Gujars : others again represent ancient ruling families with more or less probability. But whatsoever might be their origin; all these clans acquired a certain homogeneity by constant intermarriage and adoption of common customs. They all refused to perform the manual work of an agriculturists. It is this code of hononr, these, common customs, which made them homo- geneous and unique. (Imperial Gazetteer of India. Volume II Historical, pp.307 to 308).

अर्थात सातवीं और दशवीं शताब्दी के बीच में प्राचीन वर्ण-भेद जाता रहा और स्थिति तथा कार्य के अनुसार एक नवीन वर्ण प्रचलित हो गया। प्राचीन वर्णो में से केवल ब्राह्मण और क्षत्रिय ये दो वर्ण नाममात्र को रह गए। --- जाट इतिहास:ठाकुर देशराज,पृष्ठान्त-114

आर्य क्षत्रियों ने बहुत दिनों से लड़ाई का काम छोड़ दिया था। उनमें बड़े-बड़े तात्विक संघर्ष होने लगे थे। कहते हैं उनकी सम्पूर्ण जाति ब्राह्मणों से विवाद करने के कारण निकाल दी गई। चाहे जो हुआ हो परन्तु यह बात अब तक चली आती थी कि राज्य करना क्षत्रिय का काम है। सातवीं सदी तक क्षत्रिय राजा रहे। हां, यह जरूर है कि उन में बहुत से शूद्र क्षत्रिय थे। बल्कि ओहिन्द के तुर्की बादशाहों के समान बहुत से हिन्दू भी नहीं थे। बीच के जमाने में इनका स्थान राजपूतों ने ले लिया, जिनको लोग ठाकुर कहते हैं। राजपूतों ने अपनी बढ़ती के समय के सम्पूर्ण राजनैतिक इतिहास पर अधिकार कर लिया है। प्रत्येक जाति जिसने कुछ दिनों भी राज्य किया उनमें मिल गई। वे हक (स्वत्व) और दस्तावेज वगैरह को बिल्कुल न देखते थे, किन्तु तलवार के जोर से जमीन तो लेते थे और सदा नई जगहों की खोज में रहा करते थे। यद्यपि वे सिन्धु से लेकर बिहार तक पाये जाते हैं परन्तु उनके असली स्थान - राजपूताना, दक्षिणी अवध ही थे। उन्होंने आठवीं-नवीं शताब्दी में पहले पहल अपने को प्रकट किया। अनेक बड़ी जातियों ने उनकी भावी जगहों को 800 और 850 के बीच में लिया। राजपूताने से वे पंजाब गए और फिर दसवीं शताब्दी में काश्मीर चले गए। इसी समय वे दक्षिण अवध से उत्तर-पूर्व में फैल गए और बारहवी-तेरहवीं शताब्दी में मध्य हिमालय को उन्होंने अपने अधिकार में कर लिया।

राजपूत और जाट में अंतर

जाट-ब्राह्मण संघर्ष और राजपूत - ठाकुर देशराज[65] ने लिखा है.... उधर ब्राह्मण लोग जाटों से उनकी सामाजिक उदारता के कारण असंतुष्ट थे ही। जैन और ब्राह्मणों का जिस समय संघर्ष चल रहा था उस समय तो ब्राह्मणों ने स्पष्ट कह दिया था कि कलयुग में कोई क्षत्रिय नहीं है। क्योंकि जैन लोग आरंभ में केवल तीन ही वर्ण मानते थे: क्षत्रिय, वैश्य और शूद्र। बौद्ध लोग भी ब्राह्मण की अपेक्षा क्षत्रिय को ऊंचा समझते थे। यही कारण था कि ब्राह्मणों को क्रोध में वह फतवा देना पड़ा कि कलयुग में क्षत्रिय वर्ण ही नहीं है। किंतु राज शक्ति के बिना धर्म का प्रचार होने में बड़ी कठिनाई थी। अतः पहले तो उन्होंने कई राज्यों को षड्यंत्र द्वारा अपने हाथ में किया। शुंग, चच और कण्व इसके उदाहरण हैं* किंतु कुछ काल बाद अनेकों बौद्ध जैन राजाओं को अपने धर्म में दीक्षित कर लिया। दीक्षा संबंधी सबसे बड़ा उत्सव आबू का यज्ञ है जिसमें उत्तरी भारत के अनेक वंश आकर दीक्षित हुए थे। चाहू, परिहार, सोलंकी और परमार इन में मुख्य हैं। यहीं से एक तीसरे अग्निकुल की स्थापना हुई। पीछे से ब्राह्मण और अग्निकुल एक हो गए। हो ही जाने चाहिए थे उनकी स्थापना का उद्देश्य ही एक था। इस आंदोलन

* देखो विश्वेश्वरनाथ रेऊ कृत भारत के प्राचीन राजवंशी द्वितीय भाग में शुंग और कण्व वंश का वर्णन।

[पृ.30]:आंदोलन (movement) के मुख्य दो केंद्र थे। आबु और नैमिषारण्य। यह अग्निकुली और ब्रह्मकुली लोग ही आगे चलकर राजपूत के नाम से प्रसिद्ध हो गए और अब क्षत्रिय शब्द का स्थान राजपूत शब्द ने ले लिया। हालांकि राजपूत क्षत्रिय वंशवृक्ष की एक शाखा मात्र थे। बढ़ते बढ़ते एक समय राजपूतों के संगठन में 36 कुल शामिल हो गये थे। इनकी कई बार गणना हुई है। पहले के बाद में जितनी बार भी गणना हुई संख्या बढ़ती ही गई। किंतु नाम 36 ही रहा है। चंद्रबरदाई के बाद कर्नल टोड ने ही शायद इस गिनती को दोहराया था।* यदि आज गिनती की जाए तो यह संख्या अब 200 के करीब पहुंचाएगी क्योंकि तब से कई राज खानदान इस राजपूत संगठन में शामिल हो गए हैं। कपूरथला के अहलूवालिया और पडरौना के कुर्मी तो अभी पिछले 15-20 वर्षों में ही दीक्षित हुए हैं। बस इस संगठन में जो भी क्षत्रिय खानदान शामिल नहीं हुए उन्हें ही क्षत्रीयेतर वृषल और शूद्र तक कहने की धृष्टता की गई। हालांकि खत्री, लुहाना, धाकड़, गुर्जर, रवा और जाट पुरातन क्षत्रियों में से हैं। जाटों ने अनेक प्रकार के कष्ट सहकर भी उन रिवाजों को आज तक नहीं छोड़ा है जो वैदिक काल के उनके पूर्वजों द्वारा निर्धारित की गई थी।

* कर्नल टॉड ने इस 36 कुलों की संख्या में जाटों का भी नाम दर्ज किया है।

[पृ.31]: धार्मिक विद्वेष से बौद्ध काल के बाद के ब्राह्मणों और उनके अनुयायियों ने जाटों को गिराने के लिए ही यह कहना आरंभ किया था कि वे क्षत्रिय नहीं हैं। वरना क्या कारण है कि एक राजपूत प्रमार तो क्षत्रिय है और दूसरा जाट प्रमार क्षत्रीय नहीं है। जबकि वे दोनों इस बात को स्वीकार करते हैं कि हमारे दोनों के बाप-दादा एक ही थे। जाटों में वे सारे गोत्र मौजूद हैं जो राजपूतों की 36 कुलों में गिने जाते हैं। जाट और राजपूतों में जिनके गोत्र मिलते हैं रक्त का तो कोई अंतर है नहीं। हां रिवाजों का थोड़ा अंतर अवश्य है।

ठाकुर देशराज[66] ने लिखा है....राजपूत और जाट में क्या अंतर होता है इसका वास्तविक दर्शन महाराजा बीकानेर को तब हुआ जब सन् 1946 में लार्ड वेविल भरतपुर में शिकार के लिए पधारे थे। उस समय गर्म दल के लोगों ने महाराजा बीकानेर को काली झंडियाँ दिखाने का आयोजन किया किन्तु तमाशे के लिए इकट्ठे हुए जाटों ने इन प्रजामंडलियों के हाथों से काली झंडियां छीनछीन कर फेंक दी। क्योंकि उनको यह कतई नहीं जचा कि अपने अतिथि को, जिसे उनके राजा ने स्वयं आमंत्रित किया है, इस प्रकार अपमानित किया जाए। हालांकि जाट नेता यह जानते थे कि इन्हीं महाराजा साहब के बलबूते पर दूधवा खारा में सूरजमल नंगा नाच नाच रहा है।

राजपूत से जाट उत्पत्ति का खण्डन

दलीप सिंह अहलावत[67] लिखते हैं कि मेजर ए० एच० बिंगले ने अपनी पुस्तक “हैण्डबुक आफ जाट्स, गूजर्स एण्ड अहीर्स” के पृष्ठ 26 और 28 पर पूर्णत: गलत लिखा है कि “मान और दलाल ये दोनों, राठौर राजपूत धन्नाराव के पुत्र मान और दिल्ले की सन्तान हैं। धन्नाराव ने एक बड़गूजर जाट स्त्री से विवाह किया था। उससे ये पैदा हुए। उसके एक और पुत्र देसल की सन्तान देसवाल हैं।”

खण्डन - राजपूत संघ तो सातवीं शताब्दी में बना जबकि ऊपरलिखित जाट गोत्र प्राचीन काल से प्रचलित हैं। हमने द्वितीय अध्याय, जाट आर्य हैं, प्रकरण में काफी उदाहरण देकर ऐसे असत्य लेखों तथा भाटों की बहियों का खण्डन किया है। जस्टिस कैम्पवेल का मत भी लिखा है कि “जाटों से राजपूत बने परन्तु राजपूतों से एक भी जाटवंश प्रचलित नहीं हुआ।” ऊपर लिखित मान, दलाल, देसवाल जाट गोत्रों की उत्पत्ति के विषय में जो लेख हैं वे बेबुनियाद, मनघड़ित तथा असत्य हैं। ले० रामस्वरूप जून ‘जाट इतिहास’ पृ० 74 पर लिखते हैं कि -

“मान, दलाल, देसवाल, सिहाग इन चारों गोत्रों को भाटों ने धन्नाराव राठौर की सन्तान और सगे भाई लिखा। यह लेख असत्य है। क्योंकि मान गणराज्य का नाम महाभारत सभापर्व में है और सिहाग का भी। पंजाब में मान व सिहाग गोत्र के जाट दलाल व देसवाल को भाई नहीं मानते। भटिण्डा के मान जाट, हेर और भुल्लर गोत्र के जाटों को भाई मानते हैं। हेर,भुल्लर, सिहाग गोत्रों का आज से 2000 वर्ष पहले ईरान में बसा होना पाया जाता है।”

“भारत में जाटराज्य” उर्दू पृ० 218 पर कविराज योगेन्द्रपाल शास्त्री लिखते हैं कि “महाभारत में लड़ने वाले यदुवंशी हन्यमान या मान क्षत्रिय का वर्णन है। इनका एक बड़ा जनपद (प्रान्त) था। यह हन्यमान या मान चन्द्रवंश की एक बड़ी शाखा है। हेर और भुल्लर जाट गोत्र इन्हीं मानों की शाखा गोत्र हैं।”

राजपूतों से जाट कुलों का तथाकथित उद्भव-कपोल-कल्पित

जात इतिहासकार भीमसिंह दहिया[68] ने लेख किया है कि 'ट्राइब्स एण्ड कास्टस वॉल्यूम II' [69] में एक चार्ट दिया गया है जिसमें मूल राजपूत वंश और इनसे विकसित कथित जाट कुल लिखे गए हैं. यह कथित वंश परंपरा स्पष्ट रूप में गलत है. राजपूत नाम तो एक जातीय नाम के रूप में, सामाजिक तथा धार्मिक मतभेदों के परिणाम स्वरूप 10 वीं शताब्दी या इसके बाद ही अपनाया गया था, जबकि इन राजपूतों से पूर्व जाटों का तो विकसित और अति प्राचीन इतिहास बन चुका था. जाटों के वे वर्ग जिन्हें औपचारिक रूप में ब्राह्मणवाद में दीक्षित किया गया और जिन्होंने आगे चलकर विधवा विवाह के स्थान पर सती प्रथा का पालन करना अधिक उत्तम समझा, वे राजपूत कहलाए.

यह बात भी ध्यान में रखी जानी चाहिए कि राजपूतों की बहूसंख्या, कम से कम इन के महत्वपूर्ण कुल, मध्य एशिया से बहुत पीछे आने वाले लोग थे, जबकि जाट कुल तो वैदिक काल में भी विद्यमान रहे हैं. 'ट्राइब्स एण्ड कास्टस वॉल्यूम II'[70] के उक्त चार्ट में कई कुल जैसे बोला, श्योराण, सूरी, शोर, खिचड़, खरवाल, माहलू (महल) आदि को एक के स्थान पर दो-दो कुलों का वंशज माना गया है और ऐसा परिणाम तो होना ही था जब कोई घोड़े के आगे गाड़ी बांध दे. निस्संदेह हम इस बात से इंकार नहीं करते कि एक विद्यमान कुल से नए कुल विकसित नहीं हुए होंगे, हमारा आग्रह केवल इतना है कि एक पुराने कुल से, मूल कुल से, एक नया कुल अथवा शाखा विकसित हुई न कि इसके विपरीत. क्योंकि सदा जड़ों से ही शाखायें पनपती हैं न कि शाखाओं से जड़ें. अत: मोर (मौर्य) को परमार कुल की एक शाखा कहना एक मूर्खता पूर्ण कथन है.

वास्तव में जो हुआ वह कुछ इस प्रकार गठित हुआ होगा. एक कुल जब राजनीतिक प्रभुत्व प्राप्त कर लेता है तो इस प्रभावी कुल को जो अन्य कुल अपना समर्थन प्रदान करते हैं, वह एक तरह से राजनीतिक संघ का भाग बन जाते हैं. इस रूप में ही मोर, शकान, कुशवाह, गुर्जर, परमार , चौहान तथा राठौड़ वंशों के संघ बने. इसका अर्थ यह नहीं है कि इन संघों के कारण लोग जो कि विशेष कुल के साथ मिलकर रहते थे वे इस कुल के वंशज हो गए या प्रभुत्व प्राप्त कुल की शाखा बन गए. अतः वास्तव में यह प्रस्तुत चार्ट केवल इस बात का पता देता है कि ये विशेष जाटकुल अन्य कुलों के साथ, तोमर, चौहान, भट्टी, परमार तथा गुर्जरों द्वारा अपने राज्य गठित करते समय इनके समर्थक थे. केवल इसी कारण से एक कुल विशेष एक से अधिक पूर्वजों से विकसित दिखाई देता है.[71]

कुछ क्षत्रिय वर्गों के राज्य संघ यथा चौहान आदि के प्रभावशील होने पर जाट गोत्र उनमें सम्मिलित हुये और चौहान सत्ता के पतन के पश्चात विभिन्न कारणों से ये जाट गोत्र पुनः जाट संघ में समाहित हो गए। आतः राजपूत से जाट जाति के उत्पत्ति का प्रश्न ही उपस्थित नहीं होता है। जाट संघ में मिलने से राजपूत उनसे घृणा करने लगे और भाटों से उनका ऊल-जलूल काल्पनिक इतिहास लिखवाया गया। [72]

राजपूतों की उत्पत्ति

उनकी उत्पत्ति के विषय में बड़ा मतभेद है। राजपूत जाति द्वाबे (दुआबे) की नहीं है। उस समय कन्नौज का राज्य हिन्दुस्तान के सब राज्यों में बढ़ा-चढ़ा था। और द्वाबे का देश बीच के समय में आर्य-जाति और आर्य सभ्यता का केन्द्र रहा था। इस कारण राजपूत लोग कदापि शुद्ध आर्य नहीं हो सकते। जब हम अत्यन्त प्राचीन जातियों की असली उत्पत्ति पर विचार करते हैं तो मालूम होता है कि वे मिश्रित हैं। पंजाब में ऐसी राज्यधिकारी ब्राह्मण जातियां हैं जो राजपूत हो गईं। अवध में ब्राह्मण, भर और अहीरों में से राजपूत बन गये। परन्तु अधिकतर राजपूत शूद्रता से आर्यत्व को प्राप्त हुए। राजपूताने की जातियों में से चौहान, सोलंकी, गहलौत आदि कुछ की उत्पत्ति विदेशीय है। कुछ इन्डो सीथियन-जाट और गूजरों में से हैं। कुछ सभ्य प्राचीन राजवंशों में से हैं। अस्तु, चाहे जो उनकी उत्पत्ति हो, ये सब जातियां आपस में शादी व्यवहार करने तथा अन्य रीति-रिवाजों के कारण मिलकर कुछ-कुछ एक सी हो गई हैं। यद्यपि ये सब अपने को एक ही कुल और वंश से बतलाते थे, परन्तु जातीय प्रेम और स्वामी की आज्ञा-पालन में बड़े प्रसिद्ध थे। ये ऊंची जातियों में अपनी लड़कियां दिया करते थे। और नीची जाति से लड़कियां लिया करते थे। शील-रक्षा के विषय में उनके समान भाव थे! और जौहर एवं सती के भी समान रिवाज थे।

जाट इतिहास:ठाकुर देशराज,पृष्ठान्त-115

कोई भी काम खेती और मजूरी का नहीं करता था। इन्हीं समान रिवाजों के कारण वे सब एक हो गए। पश्चात् उनके बन्दीगणों ने उनके विषय में अनेक कथायें बनाकर उनको भी राम और कृष्ण की संतान और उनके कुल की मनमानी प्रशंसा कर डाली।

इम्पीरियल गजेटियर की दी हुई सम्मति से हम पूर्णतया सहमत नहीं हैं। राजपूतों में अनेक विशुद्ध आर्य राजवंशी भी हैं और न वे सब विदेशी हैं। उनमें से बहुत से ऐसे राजवंश हैं जिनका सीधा सम्बन्ध यादव क्षत्रियों से तथा सूर्यवंशियों से है जैसे - करोली के यादव और संयुक्त प्रदेश के रघुवंशीअग्निवंशी राजपूतों के सम्बन्ध में यह हो सकता है जैसा कि भाई परमानन्दजी ने ‘तारीख पंजाब’ में लिखा है कि - ‘वह भारत की पिछड़ी हुई और जंगली जातियों से क्षत्रिय श्रेणी में लाए गए।’ चिन्तामणि वैद्य के ‘हिन्दू भारत का उत्कर्ष’ में लिखा हुआ यह कथन भी सही माना जा सकता है कि - ‘परिहार और बड़गूजर गूजरों से राजपूत बनाए गये।’ राजपूतों के जाटू गोत्रों का निकास जाटों से हुआ है, इसमें कोई आश्चर्य की बात नहीं ।

मि.आर.जी. लेथम के ‘एथनोलोजी ऑफ इण्डिया’ पृष्ट के एक नोट से जाट-राजपूत के सम्बन्ध में इस तरह प्रकाश पड़ता है -

"The Jat in blood is neither more nor less than a converted Rajput and vice versa, a Rajput may be a Jat of the ancient faith."

अर्थात् - रक्त में जाट परिवर्तन किए हुए राजपूत से न तो अधिक ही है और न कम ही है। इसमें अदल-बदल भी है। एक राजपूत प्राचीन धर्म का पालन करने वाला एक जाट हो सकता है।

वास्तव में बात तो यही है, किन्तु छठी-सातवीं सदी के पश्चात् जाटों की प्रजातन्त्री शक्ति नष्ट होती गई और राजपूतों की साम्राज्यशक्ति बढ़ती गई। यद्यपि इस बात को वे स्वयं जानते हैं कि जाटों के और हमारे बीच में रक्त-सम्बन्धी कोई अन्तर नहीं है, किन्तु फिर भी वे अपने को जाटों से उच्च मानकर उनके साथ में राज्य-शक्ति के बल पर कटुतापूर्ण व्यवहार करने लगे। संयुक्त प्रदेश और पंजाब में जाट और राजपूतों के अन्दर राजपूताने जैसा भेद नहीं है। प्रत्यक्ष और अप्रत्यक्ष रीतियों से दोनों जातियों में वैवाहिक-सम्बन्ध भी होते रहे हैं। कर्नल टाड के कथनानुसार राजा शालेन्द्रजित ने किसी यादव राजपूत की लड़की से शादी की थी लेकिन उसकी सन्तान दोगली कहलाई। इससे ऐसा मालूम पड़ता है कि शालेन्द्र के जाति भाई जाटों ने राजपूतों के साथ विवाह-सम्बध करने में अपनी हेटी समझी थी। पंजाब-केसरी महाराज रणजीतसिंह की अनेक रानियों में से दो राजपूत बालायें थीं। हमें इस बात पर अधिक प्रकाश डालने की कोई अधिक आवश्यकता

जाट इतिहास:ठाकुर देशराज,पृष्ठान्त-116

नहीं जान पड़ती कि कितने जाट कुमार-कुमारियों के सम्बन्ध राजपूतों से हुए।

जाटों में ऐसे अनेक गोत्र हैं जो राजपूत-गोत्रों से बिल्कुल मिलते हैं जैसे बड़गूजर, भट्टी, दाहिमा, दहिया, दीक्षित, गेहरवार, गहलोत, इन्दोलिया, कछवाह, मोरी, पवार, परिहार, रैकवार, राठौर, राठी, रावत, सिकरवार, सोलंकी, तोमर आदि आदि।

इन गोत्रों से दोनों जातियों के पीछे की कई पीढ़ियों में जाकर एकत्व सिद्ध होता है। एक ही नाम के राजवंश दो अथवा अधिक दलों में (जाट, राजपूत, गूजर) कब और क्योंकर विभक्त हो गए इस प्रश्न का सही उत्तर यह है कि कुछ राजनैतिक मतभेदों के कारण (साम्राज्यवादी और ज्ञातिवादी अर्थात् प्रजातन्त्री होने) कुछ धार्मिक-विरोध के कारण (जैन, हिन्दू, बौद्ध आदि के संघर्ष) तब विभिन्न हो गए और तब बौद्ध-काल के बाद पौराणिक धर्म के उत्कर्ष का समय आ गया था।

इनके विभिन्न होने का समय एक तो महाभारत के बाद का है जो कि साम्राज्यवादी और गणतंत्रियों की भिड़न्त का जमाना कहा जाता है। दूसरा बौद्ध-काल के पश्चात् का है, जबकि पौराणिक धर्म का उदय हुआ था। राजनैतिक और धार्मिक मतभेद ने एक-एक राजवंश और कुल को विभिन्न दलों या जातियों में बांट दिया। इस प्रश्न का हल वंशावली रखने वाले भाटों व व्यासों ने एक विचित्र और बेढंगे तरीके से किया है। उनका कहना है कि जो-जो राजपूत सरदार किसी जाटनी से शादी करते गये, जाट हो गये। एक तो यह उत्तर अथवा धारणा यों ही गलत है कि उनके यहां एक भी जाट गोत ऐसा न मिलेगा जिसके लिये उन्होंने यह न लिखा हो कि वह अमुक राजपूत के जाटनी से शादी कर लेने के कारण जाट हो गये। जब सभी जाट इस प्रकार राजपूत के जाटनी से सम्बन्ध कर लेने के कारण हुए हैं तो आखिर वे जाटनी कहां से आईं जिनसे कि वे सम्बन्ध कर लेते थे। दूसरे, हमें हिन्दू धर्म-ग्रन्थों में ऐसे प्रमाण तो मिलते हैं कि स्त्री चाहे किसी भी गोत व जाति की हो, पति के गोत व कुल में आने पर उसके ही कुल की हो जाती है, और उसकी संतान बाप के वंश के नाम से पुकारी जाती है । किन्तु यह कहीं भी लिखा हुआ नहीं मिलता कि पुरूष शादी की हुई स्त्री के कुल का हो जाये और उसकी संतान स्त्री के कुल की कही जाए। ‘मनु’ तो कहता है कि - ‘स्त्री’ किसी भी कुल की हो और रत्न कहीं भी प्राप्त हो ग्रहण कर लेना चाहिए। व्यासों या भाटों का कथन सही माना जाये तो सिद्ध होता है कि राजपूत वास्तव में हिन्दू नियमों को मानने वाले न थे, और शायद ऐसे ही कारणों से यूरोपियन इतिहासकारों ने उन्हें विदेशी मान लिया हो। किन्तु बात ऐसी नहीं है। या तो व्यास लोग राजनीति और धार्मिक मतभेद की बात को छिपाना चाहते थे, जिससे उन्होंने ऐसी बातें गढ़ी हैं या वे जाटों के साथ धार्मिक द्वेष रखने के कारण उन्हें दूसरों की निगाह में वर्णसंकर सिद्ध करने के लिए ऐसी बातें फैलाते थे। धार्मिक विद्वेष में

जाट इतिहास:ठाकुर देशराज,पृष्ठान्त-117

इससे भी झूठी और घृणित बातें पहले से ही फैलाई जाती रही हैं। विष्णु-पुराण में बुद्ध को राक्षसों (बौद्धमतावलंबियों) के बहकाने के लिए और उन्हें माया जाल में फंसाने के लिए प्रकट हुआ अवतार कहा है। जैन ग्रन्थकारों ने तो धार्मिक द्वेष में इतनी नीचता की (जैन हरिवंश पुराण में लिखा है) कि भगवान श्रीकृष्ण को नाभि नाम नर्क में पहुंचा दिया। खेद तो हमें इस बात का है कि कुछ मुसलमान और अन्य इतिहास लेखक भी व्यासों के इस कथन पर विश्वास करने को तैयार हो गए। यह हम मानते हैं कि करोली के महाराज और भरतपुर के नरेश दोनों ही यादववंशी हैं तथा जैसलमेर और पटियाला के नरेश भट्टी कुल की शाखायें हैं। किन्तु यह मानना बिल्कुल बुद्धि-विरूद्ध होगा कि पटियाला के महाराज दोगला हैं। धार्मिक मतभेद तथा सामाजिक रस्म-रिवाजों की भिन्नता ने उन्हें दो दलों में बांट दिया, एक राजपूत कहलाते हैं, दूसरे जाट। कुछ लोगों का कहना है कि पुनर्विवाह को मानने के कारण एक समुदाय के कुछ लोग जाट और पुनर्विवाह को बुरा समझने के कारण दूसरे राजपूत हो गए। यह सही है कि पौराणिक धर्म ने पुनर्विवाह निषेध किया है और इस समय पर्दे की प्रथा का भी चलन हो रहा था। जिन लोगों ने पुनर्विवाह की बन्दी के प्रस्ताव को मान लिया और पर्दे का प्रचलन कर दिया राजपूत कहलाने लग गये हैं और जो लोग पुनर्विवाह को अपने पुरखाओं की मर्यादा मानकर उसे न छोड़ सके, वे जाट हो गए। ये बातें पूर्णांश में नहीं, तो कुछ अंश तक सही हो सकती हैं। किन्तु सारे जाट इसी भांति जाट हुए और सारे राजपूत इसी भांति राजपूत हुए हों ऐसी बात नहीं है। ऐसी घटनाएं 8वीं सदी के इधर की हो सकती हैं। उधर के भेदों का कारण तो बौद्ध-हिन्दू-धर्म के संघर्ष तथा उससे पहले राजनैतिक मतभेद हैं। केवल क, ख, ग, का ज्ञान रखने वाले व्यास या जागा, जो कि अपने प्रभु-राजपूतों को जाटों से श्रेष्ठ बताना चाहते थे, इसके सिवाय कह ही क्या सकते थे कि वे (जाट) राजपूतों से निकले हैं। किन्तु अपने होने वाले अपमान का राजपूतों ने भी कभी ख्याल नहीं किया कि उनमें विशेषता क्या रही जब जाटनी से सम्बन्ध रखने के कारण जाट हो गये?

राजपूत और राजपूताना

इस सम्बंध में तोमरों के इतिहासकार हरिहर निवास द्विवेदी लिखते हैं कि वर्तमान राजस्थान और मुगलकालीन राजपूताने में तोमरों की राजधानी कभी नहीं रही. परन्तु यह उल्लेख है कि राजपुताना या राजस्थान से ’राजपूत’ शब्द का कोई सीधा सम्बन्ध नहीं है. सभौगोलिक विभाग के रूप मे 'राजपूताना’ शब्द का उद्गम मुगलों के समय में हुआ था. परन्तु राजपूत शब्द का प्रयोग इससे पहले होने लगा था. 'राजपूत’ शब्द का उद्गम 'राजपुताना' से नहीं है, इसके विपरीत 'राजपूताना’ नाम 'राजपूत’ से उत्पन्न हुआ है. क्षत्रिय राजाओं के लिये 'राजपुत्र’ शब्द 1318 ई. में लिखी गई ठक्कुर फ़ेरू की ’द्रव्यपरीक्षा’ में मिलता है; सन 1397 में लिखी गई 'चन्दायन’ में राजपूत शब्द प्रयुक्त हुआ है और सन 1455 ई. में रचित 'कान्हडदे-प्रबन्ध’ में भी. अकबर के समय में वर्तमान राजस्थान में ही स्वतन्त्र राजपूत राजा शेष रह गये थे और मुगलों के राजपूत ठिकाने भी वहीं पर थे, अत एव मुगलों ने उस प्रदेश को ’राजपूताना’ अभिधान दिया गया. प्रादेशिक नाम 'राजपूताना' इस प्रकार मुगल काल की देन है. [73]

तोमर संघ

हरिहर निवास द्विवेदी लिखते हैं कि 1177 ई. के पश्चात उत्तर-पश्चिम भारत विश्रृखल राजाओं का संघ रह गया था, जो दिल्ली के तोमर राजा को अपना मुखिया मानता था. यह संभव है कि तोमर-साम्राज्य का यह स्वरूप अनंगपाल द्वितीय के समय में भी हो. अर्थात वह अनेक राज्यों का संघ हो. उस युग में इस प्रकार के संघ थे. ’वल्ल-मण्डलप्रतिहारों के राज्यों का संघ ही था. परन्तु अनंगपाल तोमर के समय में समस्त अधिनस्त सामन्त या भुमिपति दिल्ली का नियन्त्रण पूर्णतः मानते थे. पृथ्वीराज तोमर के समय में चौहानों के साथ हुये लम्बे विग्रहों के कारण यह नियन्त्रण शिथिल हो गया था. हांसी का भीम सिंह तथा वे अनेक (या फ़रिस्ता के अनुसार 150) राजा इसी तोमर संघ के अधीन थे. [74]


  1. The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations/An Historico-Somatometrical study bearing on the origin of the Jats, pp.127-128
  2. Letham, op. cit., p. 254.
  3. Sir Denzil Ibbetson, q. by C. V. Vaidya, His. of Med. Hindu Ind., Vol. I, p. 88
  4. Chattopadhyay & Kushwha, op. cit., Part-II, I am highly grateful to Dr. S. Prakash, Chairman, Deptt. of Anthropology, Punjab University, Chandigarh for information.
  5. Banerjee, Anil Chandra: Lectures on Rajput History, 1962, Calcutta, Ch. I.
  6. Guha,Amalendu; Cen. Asia, Report of Dushanbe Cong. 1968, p. 168. Qanungo Studies in Rajputs His., Delhi, 1960, pp. 96-101.
  7. Hutton, op. cit., p. 37.
  8. Puri, B.N.; His. of Gurjar-Pratiharas Ch. 9.
  9. Cf. Infra Ch. on, Jat and its Variants.
  10. Jats the Ancient Rulers (A clan study)/The Jats, p.71-72
  11. History of the Jats:Dr Kanungo, p. 330.
  12. Jats the Ancient Rulers (A clan study)/Relationship with the Aryans,pp.113-
  13. V. S. Agrawala: India as Known to Panini, 1953, p.405
  14. V. S. Agrawala: India as Known to Panini, 1953, p.406
  15. Jats the Ancient Rulers (A clan study)/Relationship with the Aryans,p.108-109
  16. JBORS, 1930, p. 472.
  17. Aitihasik Sthanavali by Vijayendra Kumar Mathur, p.781
  18. पाणिनीकालीन भारत |लेखक: वासुदेवशरण अग्रवाल |प्रकाशक: चौखम्बा विद्याभवन, वाराणसी-1 |संकलन: भारतकोश पुस्तकालय |पृष्ठ संख्या: 104 |
  19. [ https://bharatdiscovery.org/india/%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF भारतकोश-राजन्य]
  20. History of the Jats/Chapter I,p.5
  21. Rajput Period Was Dark Age Of India
  22. Rajput Period Was Dark Age Of India
  23. [Mahajan Vidya Dhar, "Ancient India", Fifth Edition, Reprint 1972, Chand and Co., New Delhi. p. 550 ff.]
  24. Stella Kramerish, "Selected writings of Stella Kramerish", Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1968, p. 90; fn:- Koppers, "Die Bhil", p.14
  25. D. C. Sircar, 'The Classical Age', HCIP vol. III, p. 225
  26. D. C. Sarkar, 'Classical Age', p. 208 ff.
  27. D. C. Sarkar, 'Classical Age', p. 227
  28. Clas. Age, p. 229 ff.
  29. p. 115, Menace of Hindu Imperialism
  30. D. C. Sarkar, 'Classical Age', p.268
  31. Yazdani G., 'Early History of Deccan', Oxford Univ. Press, 1960, p.731
  32. Altekar A. S., 'The Age of Imperiaal Kanauj', p.1, HCIP vol. IV, Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan 1955
  33. Epochs of Indian History, by R. C. Dutt
  34. Swami Dharma Teertha, "The menace of Hindu Imperialism", p.n.108
  35. Dharma Teertha, p. 111
  36. Dharma Teertha, p.116
  37. Swami Dharma Teertha, p. 117
  38. E.B.Havell, History of Aryan Rule in India, p. 217, Quoted by Dharma Teertha, p. 118
  39. Dutt R. C., 'Later Hindu Civilization', p.38
  40. Dutt R. C., 'Later Hindu Civilization', p. 40, quoted by Dharma Teertha, p. 119
  41. Dharma Teertha, p.119
  42. Dharma Teertha, p. 122
  43. Kelkar S. V., "An Essay on Hinduism, p. 149
  44. p. 22, An Essay on Hinduism, by Kelkar
  45. p.29, An Essay on Hinduism, by Kelkar.
  46. [A study of History, (abridged by D. C. Somervll) vol. I, New York, 1969, p. 350] [L. M. Joshi, "Aspects of Buddhism in Indian History", 1973, Wheel publication No. 195/196, Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy (Sri Lanka), pp. 52 ff.]
  47. डॉ गोपीनाथ शर्मा: 'राजस्थान के इतिहास के स्त्रोत', 1983, पृ.96
  48. शर्मा डॉ. गोपीनाथ शर्मा: राजस्थान के इतिहास के स्तोत्र, 1983, पृ. 96
  49. http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?31104-Research-on-history-of-Jat-clans&p=266449#post266449
  50. http://www.jatland.com/forums/showthread.php?31104-Research-on-history-of-Jat-clans&p=266449#post266449
  51. Kings of Kashmira Vol 2 (Rajatarangini of Kalhana)/Book VIII,p.28
  52. Kings of Kashmira Vol 2 (Rajatarangini of Kalhana)/Book VIII,p.79
  53. Kings of Kashmira Vol 2 (Rajatarangini of Kalhana)/Book VIII (i) ,p.114
  54. Kings of Kashmira Vol 2 (Rajatarangini of Kalhana)/Book VIII (i) ,p.115
  55. Kings of Kashmira Vol 2 (Rajatarangini of Kalhana)/Book VIII (i) ,p.119
  56. Kings of Kashmira Vol 2 (Rajatarangini of Kalhana)/Book VIII (i) ,p.146
  57. Kings of Kashmira Vol 2 (Rajatarangini of Kalhana)/Book VIII (i) ,p.161
  58. Kings of Kashmira Vol 2 (Rajatarangini of Kalhana)/Book VIII (ii),p.17-18
  59. Kings of Kashmira Vol 2 (Rajatarangini of Kalhana)/Book VIII (ii),p.269
  60. Kings of Kashmira Vol 2 (Rajatarangini of Kalhana)/Book VIII (ii),p.283
  61. Kings of Kashmira Vol 2 (Rajatarangini of Kalhana)/Book VIII (ii),p.284
  62. Kings of Kashmira Vol 2 (Rajatarangini of Kalhana)/Book VIII (ii),p.288
  63. Kings of Kashmira Vol 2 (Rajatarangini of Kalhana)/Book VIII (ii),p.291
  64. http://hpuna.nic.in/history.htm
  65. Thakur Deshraj: Jat Itihas (Utpatti Aur Gaurav Khand)/Tratiya Parichhed,p.29-31
  66. Jat Jan Sewak, 1949, p.114
  67. जाट वीरों का इतिहास: दलीप सिंह अहलावत, पृष्ठ-300
  68. Jats the Ancient Rulers (A clan study)/Appendices/Appendix I,p.316
  69. A glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province By H.A. Rose Vol II/J,p.375
  70. A glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province By H.A. Rose Vol II/J,p.375
  71. भीमसिंह दहिया की पुस्तक का यह भाग जाट समाज पत्रिका, आगरा, जून 2019, पृ.7 से लिया गया है.
  72. Laxman Burdak (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2017 (EDT)
  73. Harihar Niwas Dwivedi, Dilli Ke Tomar, p.166
  74. Harihar Niwas Dwivedi, Dilli Ke Tomar, p. 273-274