Critically examine the origin of rajput in 1000 words
Answers
Heya Mate ✌️
.
There is no agreement among scholars regarding the origin of the Rajputs. It has been opined by many scholars that the Rajputs are the descendants of foreign invaders like Sakas, Kushanas, white-Hunas etc. All these foreigners, who permanently settled in India, were absorbed within the Hindu society and were accorded the status of the Kshatriyas.
It was only afterwards that they claimed their lineage from the ancient Kshatriya families. The other view is that the Rajputs are the descendants of the ancient Brahamana or Kshatriya families and it is only because of certain circumstances that they have been called the Rajputs.
Earliest and much debated opinion concerning the origin of the Rajputs is that all Rajput families were the descendants of the Gurjaras and the Guijaras were of foreign origin. Therefore, all Rajput families were of foreign origin and only, later on, were placed among Indian Kshatriyas and were called the Rajputs. The adherents of this view argue that we find references to the Guijaras only after the 6th century when foreigners had penetrated in India.
So, they were not of Indian origin but foreigners. Cunningham described them as the descendants of the Kushanas. A.M.T. Jackson described that one race called Khajara lived in Arminia in the 4th century. When the Hunas attacked India, Khajaras also entered India and both of them settled themselves here by the beginning of the 6th century. These Khajaras were called Gurjaras by the Indians. Kalhana has narrated the events of the reign of Gurjara king, Alkhana who ruled in Punjab in the 9th century.
A part of Rajputana was called Gurjara-Pradesh in the 9th century while, in the 10th century, Gujarat was referred to as Gurjara. Therefore, some scholars have described that the Gurjaras entered India through Afghanistan, settled themselves in different parts of India and were the ancestors of the Rajputs. A stone-inscription at Rajora of 959 A.D. describes Mathandeo, a feudal Chief of Vijaypala as Gurjara-Pratihara.
It led to the conclusion that the Pratiharas were also a branch of the Gurjaras. The Chalukyas gave the name of Gujarat to that particular territory. It meant that the Chalukyas were also the Gurjaras. Prithviraja Raso also described that the Pratiharas, the Chalukyas, the Parmaras and the Chauhanas originated out of a sacrificial fire-pit which supported the theory of foreign origin of the Rajputs.
Therefore, several scholars described that all thirty-two Kulas of the Rajputs originated from the Gurjaras who were foreigners and, thus, all Rajputs were foreigners and were provided the status of the Kshatriyas only afterwards.
However, this view has not been accepted by the majority of modern historians. It is not certain that the Khajaras were called the Gurjaras. Except the Parmaras, rest of the three Rajput Kulas refused to accept their origin out of sacrificial fire-pit. There is no proof that these four Rajput clans had blood relations On the contrary, it has been regarded more reliable that the Parmaras and the Chaulukvas had no relation, whatsoever, within the Gurjaras.
No early Muslim record has mentioned that the Gurjaras were a clan. Rather a particular territory has been referred to as Gurjara. In India, several families were named on the name of the territory’ which they inhabited. Therefore, it is more logical to accept that the Pratihara was that clan which occupied Gurjara-Pradesh.
Arab scholars, Sulaimana and Abu Jaid described Jurj as a state and they used the word jurj for Gurjara-Pradesh. Therefore, modern historians refused to accept this view that all Rajput Kulas were the descendants of the Guijaras and as the Guijaras were foreigners so all Rajputs had a foreign origin.
Tod, in his Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, declared that the Rajputs were of Scythian origin. He drew parallels between the customs of foreigners like Sakas, Kushanas and Hunas, etc. and the Rajputs. He expressed that customs like Aswamedha-Yajna, worship of horse and arms and the status of women in society were similar among these foreigners and the Rajputs and therefore, declared that the Rajputs were the descendants of these foreigners.
I hope it's sufficient to you so mark as brainlist:-)
Explanation:
During the early medieval period in Indian history-750-1200 AD, Rajputs emerged as a new Kshatriya clan. It started with emergence of various warrior castes which later got assimilated into a single caste-Rajputs.
The origin of Rajputs is a highly debated topic. Different historians have given different theories in this regard so i am writing a brief overview.
1. Agnikul Theory- that they emerged from sacred agni at mount abu as a result of havan performed by rishi vashishth. This is written in the bardic tradition.
2. Foreign Theory-Alexander Cunninghum, James Todd, Vincent Smith, R.n.Bhandarkar- That rajputs actually came along with foreign tribes like Hunas,Shakas, KUshanas, etc and thus are a later addition to the population who later hinduised themselves.
3. Indian Theory- C.v.Vaidya- That rajputs are Chandravanshi and suryavanshi and are original Indians and pure Aryans who fought against muslim foreign invaders.
4. Mixed origin theory
5. B.D.Chattopadhay has stated that origin and emergence of rajputs was closely related to the political, social and economic developments of that time.
I have mentioned in brief. U will have to elaborate them to get the 1000 word mark.