Castes Claiming Rajput Identity: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 09:07, 28 June 2025

Various communities across India that have, over time, asserted or adopted Rajput identity, either partially or wholly. These claims often emerge due to social, political, and cultural motivations, including upward caste mobility (Sanskritization), historical reinterpretation, or shared traditions. These claims are contested or viewed as efforts to gain social prestige or political representation.

Background

The term Rajput (from Sanskrit Rajaputra, meaning "son of a king") traditionally denotes a group of martial clans primarily from northern and western India. Rajputs historically held positions as rulers, landholders, and warriors. Over centuries, as the rigid caste hierarchy of India evolved, many communities sought to align themselves with the Rajput status to elevate their social standing, especially during colonial and post-colonial periods.

Notable Examples

Community	Region	Basis of Claim
Lodhi	Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh	Sanskritization
Arakvanshi	Eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar	Warrior lineage claims
Kushwaha	Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh	Mythological descent
Koli	Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra	Militarized clans
Kurmi/Mali	Northern and Central India	Agricultural dominance; Sanskritization
Karnwaj	Uttar Pradesh, Bihar	-
Gadariya	Northern India	Shepherd community claiming warrior status
Kachhi	Uttar Pradesh, Bihar	Agricultural caste claiming Kshatriya/Rajput status
Kahar	Northern India	Traditionally service caste claiming warrior lineage
Rawani	Bihar, Uttar Pradesh	Claims linked to martial traditions
Lodha	Eastern India	Tribal group claiming Rajput descent
Khangar	Bundelkhand region	-

Sanskritization

The process of Sanskritization, coined by sociologist M.N. Srinivas, refers to the phenomenon where lower or intermediate castes attempt to raise their social status by adopting the customs, practices, and surnames of higher castes, particularly Brahmins and Kshatriyas. One of the most visible outcomes of this process in India was the mass-scale adoption of Rajput or Kshatriya surnames and heritage claims by various non-Kshatriya groups during the colonial period.

Historical Background

The first elections in British India were held in 1920 CE, and the early 20th century witnessed a surge in caste-based identity movements. Reformist groups such as the Arya Samaj and newly formed caste Mahasabhas encouraged communities to reframe their social identity through name changes, religious reforms, and lifestyle shifts.

This was especially noticeable during the 1901 Census, when the British administration announced that caste status would be documented based on both local traditions and varna classification. This sparked a flurry of activity among many communities to project themselves as higher castes, especially Kshatriyas.

Sanskritization in Practice

To appear upwardly mobile, many communities adopted Kshatriya surnames and changed their customs:

Nonis began using the Chauhan surname under the influence of the Shri Rajput Pracharini Sabha, led by Lala Mathura Prasad Singh.
Ahirs adopted the title Yadav with the backing of the Arya Samaj and Ahir Mahasabha, promoting vegetarianism and discouraging widow remarriage to match Rajput customs.
The Gujar identity, once clearly distinct, became blurred with claims of Rajput heritage post-1901.

These communities often manipulated census data. According to G.S. Ghurye, a senior official in the 1901 census, communities organized themselves to submit coordinated false claims about their status. Another officer, L.S.S. O’Malley, noted that caste registration had become more about social politics than accurate population count.

By the 1931 census, dozens of castes had either altered their surnames or declared new identities—often as Kshatriyas or Brahmins. For example, Telis were recorded using the surname Rathore, leading to later attempts to claim historical figures like Durgadas Rathore as their own.

The Political Utility of Sanskritization

In many cases, Sanskritization was driven by social prestige and political benefit:

Some Kurmi leaders began referring to their community as Kurmi Kshatriya starting in the 1930s, requesting official recognition in British documents.
Simultaneously, Kurmis also sought inclusion in Scheduled Caste lists by the 1940s, revealing the contradictory nature of these claims.
A British education officer in 1869 noted that in India, a poor Brahmin was still considered socially superior to a wealthy Kurmi landowner, highlighting the enduring grip of varna-based hierarchy.

Ahirs, Yadavization, and Army Recruitment

The Ahir community provides a detailed case of Sanskritization. Originally associated with cattle rearing and agriculture, Ahirs began claiming descent from Yadu, adopting the title Yadav by the early 20th century.

Historian Lucia Michelutti recorded how:

In 1908, only 470 Yaduvanshi Ahirs were recorded in Etah district, compared to 23,474 Nandvanshi Ahirs.
By 1914, Yaduvanshi numbers in the district rose to 62,266, due to a coordinated shift in self-identification.

This shift was also connected to recruitment in the British Indian Army. During World War I, many Ahirs and even Brahmins tried to enlist as Rajputs to improve their chances. British army records show:

“In Etawah… Brahmins and Ahirs tried to pass themselves off as Rajputs.”

Yet traditionally, the British had considered Ahirs unsuitable for military service, refusing to recruit Nandvanshi and Gwalvanshi Ahirs. This led Ahir leaders, including royalty from Rewari, to petition the government for increased representation in the army. Similar efforts were made by Kurmi leaders.

In response, the British experimented by training some Ahirs as soldiers and rewarding bravery with land grants, following Mughal-era practices. This not only elevated their status within their own communities but also blurred social lines, creating long-term confusion about their place in the varna system.

Modern Repercussions

Over time, Sanskritized groups began claiming association with medieval rulers, declaring that certain cities, forts, or dynasties were founded or ruled by their ancestors. This has created tensions with historically established Rajput lineages.

For instance:

Ashoka Maurya’s identity has been retroactively claimed by some Koeri/Kushwaha activists, despite these terms being historically distinct until the early 20th century.
As new caste-based identities grow stronger, some communities use these claims to challenge historical Rajput dominance or assert alternative narratives.

Political and Social Mobility

In the colonial and post-independence eras, caste identities became tied to political representation, reservation benefits, and social prestige. Adopting Rajput identity often allowed castes to benefit from association with a historically dominant group.

Conclusion

Sanskritization and Rajputisation were complex social processes influenced by aspirations for higher status, political relevance, and military recognition. While many groups adopted names, customs, and genealogies of upper castes, historical records, inscriptions, and community traditions often contradict these retrospective claims.

Maintaining historical accuracy in the face of modern identity reconstruction remains essential. As Professor Srinivas noted, the British discontinued caste recording in the census after 1931 due to overwhelming manipulation and politicization—a legacy that continues to shape Indian social narratives even today.

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 |}
-== Reasons for Claiming Rajput Identity ==
+== Sanskritization ==
+The process of '''[[Sanskritization]]''', coined by sociologist '''M.N. Srinivas''', refers to the phenomenon where lower or intermediate castes attempt to '''raise their social status''' by adopting the customs, practices, and surnames of higher castes, particularly '''Brahmins and Kshatriyas'''. One of the most visible outcomes of this process in India was the '''mass-scale adoption of Rajput or Kshatriya surnames''' and heritage claims by various non-Kshatriya groups during the colonial period.
-=== Sanskritization ===
+== Historical Background ==
-Sanskritization refers to the process by which lower or intermediate castes adopt practices and rituals of upper castes to improve their social status. In many cases, claiming Rajput lineage was a part of this process. If the truth of history sits quietly in some rotting old papers or anonymous inscriptions, then new lies are bound to prevail on the streets every day. That is, no matter how strong the historical facts are; history is safe only as long as its truth is repeatedly revealed in the mainstream in some form or the other with accuracy. Whether it is through books, statements or social traditions of remembering ancestors.
+The first elections in British India were held in '''1920 CE''', and the early 20th century witnessed a surge in '''caste-based identity movements'''. Reformist groups such as the '''Arya Samaj''' and newly formed caste '''Mahasabhas''' encouraged communities to reframe their social identity through '''name changes, religious reforms, and lifestyle shifts'''.
-India's first elections were held in 1920 AD. In this environment, organizations like Arya Samaj did a lot of work on the dimension of identity-change of Indian people groups from the beginning of the 20th century. At the same time, Mahasabhas of different castes also developed, in which preparations were made vigorously for identity-change. To understand this, it is necessary to know Sanskritization.
+This was especially noticeable during the '''1901 Census''', when the British administration announced that caste status would be documented based on '''both local traditions and varna classification'''. This sparked a flurry of activity among many communities to '''project themselves as higher castes''', especially Kshatriyas.
-Sanskritisation is a social process in which groups of people (caste/subcaste/tribe) working in service sectors like agriculture, animal husbandry etc. are motivated to change the name of their clan/caste/varna etc. and to mould their dress, customs, religious activities and other cultural characteristics like Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya class with the lure of increasing their status in Hindu society. Many times scholars also call this process Rajputisation in the local context.
+== Sanskritization in Practice ==
+To appear upwardly mobile, many communities adopted '''Kshatriya surnames''' and changed their customs:
-Nonis taking Chauhan surname of Kshatriyas under the direction of Lala Mathura Prasad Singh's so-called 'Shri Rajput Pracharini Sabha'. Ahirs taking Yadav surname of Kshatriyas under the direction of Arya Samaj (Krishnanand Saraswati) and Ahir Mahasabha. Ahir and other caste Mahasabhas asked their people to adopt vegetarianism and stop practices like child marriage, widow remarriage etc. to claim to be Kshatriyas.
+* '''Nonis''' began using the '''Chauhan''' surname under the influence of the '''Shri Rajput Pracharini Sabha''', led by Lala Mathura Prasad Singh.
+* '''Ahirs''' adopted the title '''Yadav''' with the backing of the Arya Samaj and '''Ahir Mahasabha''', promoting vegetarianism and discouraging widow remarriage to match Rajput customs.
+* The '''Gujar''' identity, once clearly distinct, became blurred with claims of Rajput heritage post-1901.
-Before 1901 AD, the social identity of many castes like Gujar etc. continued to appear traditionally.
+These communities often '''manipulated census data'''. According to '''G.S. Ghurye''', a senior official in the 1901 census, communities '''organized themselves to submit coordinated false claims''' about their status. Another officer, '''L.S.S. O’Malley''', noted that caste registration had become more about '''social politics than accurate population count'''.
-Then the British announced that the correct status of castes would be recorded according to both the local structure and traditional Varna in the 1901 census. To describe what happened after this, the words of Govind Sadashiv Ghurye, a top officer involved in this census, are appropriate (translation):
+By the '''1931 census''', dozens of castes had either '''altered their surnames''' or '''declared new identities'''—often as Kshatriyas or Brahmins. For example, '''Telis''' were recorded using the surname '''Rathore''', leading to later attempts to claim historical figures like '''Durgadas Rathore''' as their own.
-'Soon many ambitious castes found this opportunity to increase their status. They called for a meeting of their people and made arrangements that such information should be given by the people of their caste in the census, so that the social status of the caste appears to be increased.'
+== The Political Utility of Sanskritization ==
+In many cases, Sanskritization was driven by '''social prestige and political benefit''':
-According to another census officer L. S. S. O'Malay (translation):
+* Some Kurmi leaders began referring to their community as '''Kurmi Kshatriya''' starting in the '''1930s''', requesting official recognition in British documents.
+* Simultaneously, Kurmis also '''sought inclusion in Scheduled Caste lists''' by the '''1940s''', revealing the contradictory nature of these claims.
+* A British education officer in 1869 noted that in India, '''a poor Brahmin was still considered socially superior to a wealthy Kurmi landowner''', highlighting the enduring grip of varna-based hierarchy.
-'People have made the census registering caste a gimmick to decide the high and low of their castes instead of counting the population. Hundreds of castes have applied with new names of their clans / castes to show their origin as Kshatriya, Vaishya etc.'
+== Ahirs, Yadavization, and Army Recruitment ==
+The '''Ahir community''' provides a detailed case of Sanskritization. Originally associated with '''cattle rearing and agriculture''', Ahirs began claiming descent from '''Yadu''', adopting the title '''Yadav''' by the early 20th century.
-In short, by the time the 1931 census came, dozens of social groups had changed their surnames or identities and made hundreds of claims of Brahmin/Kshatriya origin before the British. For example, the surname Rathore was used for the Teli community and from time to time, claims of Rajput and Vaishya origin were made in the censuses.
+Historian '''Lucia Michelutti''' recorded how:
-According to Professor M.N. Srinivas, the most respected scholar on the process of Sanskritization, this trend in the name of social prestige had increased so much that the British, fed up with it, stopped registering caste in the census after 1931.
+* In '''1908''', only '''470 Yaduvanshi Ahirs''' were recorded in Etah district, compared to '''23,474 Nandvanshi Ahirs'''.
+* By '''1914''', Yaduvanshi numbers in the district rose to '''62,266''', due to a coordinated shift in self-identification.
-These claims were not being made on the basis of any traditional role of these groups. Evidence of this can be found in many irregularities; when different factions of the same caste sometimes describe themselves as Kshatriya, sometimes as Brahmin and sometimes as Vaishya in the census.
+This shift was also connected to '''recruitment in the British Indian Army'''. During '''World War I''', many Ahirs and even Brahmins tried to '''enlist as Rajputs''' to improve their chances. British army records show:<blockquote>“In Etawah… Brahmins and Ahirs tried to pass themselves off as Rajputs.”</blockquote>Yet traditionally, the British had considered '''Ahirs unsuitable for military service''', refusing to recruit '''Nandvanshi and Gwalvanshi Ahirs'''. This led Ahir leaders, including '''royalty from Rewari''', to petition the government for '''increased representation in the army'''. Similar efforts were made by '''Kurmi leaders'''.
-The process of changing surnames was merely a preparation following the tradition of 'Gaon Thaaro, Naam Mhaaro' (Your village, my name). After this came the next phase which is active these days - now there is a direct attack on the medieval heritage on the basis of the new self-proclaimed Kshatriya identity. Many kings and dynasties are claimed to have belonged to our caste. Apart from this, some places are claimed to have been settled by a person of our caste.
+In response, the British experimented by training some Ahirs as soldiers and rewarding bravery with '''land grants''', following Mughal-era practices. This not only elevated their status within their own communities but also '''blurred social lines''', creating long-term confusion about their place in the varna system.
-By now you must have understood what was to happen after the surname Rathore was distributed to the Teli community. Efforts have begun to declare Marwar's Bhishma Pitamah Durgadas Rathore as belonging to the Teli caste.'
+== Modern Repercussions ==
+Over time, Sanskritized groups began '''claiming association with medieval rulers''', declaring that certain cities, forts, or dynasties were founded or ruled by their ancestors. This has created '''tensions with historically established Rajput lineages'''.
-Our leaders, who play with history like a political toy, have similarly handed over the identity of Emperor Ashoka Maurya to the Koeri community, for whom the word Kushwaha was used more. The truth of the confusion of Koeri and Kushwaha identities is found in the Shahabad (Bihar) Gazette of 1905 AD, before the start of the comprehensive caste census.
+For instance:
-The Kurmi community, which was traditionally agriculturist, has consistently referred to itself as Kurmi in the regular censuses conducted since 1881. The process of adding Kshatriya to the word Kurmi matured after the proposal given by their Mahasabha in 1930, under which they wrote letters to the British government that from now on they should be called 'Kurmi Kshatriya' instead of 'Kurmi' in all government documents. The then reaction of social objection to such efforts is also visible. It is interesting that along with being called Kshatriya, Kurmis also started getting included in the 'Scheduled Caste' lists from 1945. * But in the British era, when claims were made of being both backward caste and Kshatriya while riding two boats, then the traditional Varna of the people was not as deeply related to their ground level status, wealth and resources, as is generally assumed. For example, the response of a British officer in a report on the status of education in Awadh in 1869 AD throws light on this (translation) -
+* '''Ashoka Maurya’s identity''' has been retroactively claimed by some '''Koeri/Kushwaha''' activists, despite these terms being historically distinct until the early 20th century.
+* As new caste-based identities grow stronger, some communities use these claims to '''challenge historical Rajput dominance''' or assert alternative narratives.
-'Unlike Europe, the narrative in this country (India) is that here even a rich landowning Kurmi is considered backward and a very poor Brahmin is considered forward.'
+== Political and Social Mobility ==
+In the colonial and post-independence eras, caste identities became tied to political representation, reservation benefits, and social prestige. Adopting Rajput identity often allowed castes to benefit from association with a historically dominant group.
-Lucia Michelutti, in her research on Ahirs (now Yadavs), has written about how in the 19th century, several branches of Ahirs gradually merged into one branch called Yaduvanshi, and by the time of World War I, a large number of Ahirs had taken the surname Yadav. For example, in the 1908 census, there were only 470 Yaduvanshi Ahirs and 23,474 Nandvanshi Ahirs in Etah district. By 1914, the number of Yaduvanshi Ahirs increased to 62,266. The same trend was then seen in many districts like Mainpuri, Etawah and Farrukhabad. Social prestige, claims of being Kshatriya and recruitment in the British army; all these were interlinked issues. An example verbatim from the documents of the Home Department of the British Government during the First World War:
-"Recruitment has been generally satisfactory. In Etawah in the United Provinces the desire to enlist has been so keen that Brahmins and Ahirs have been trying to pass themselves off as Rajputs.". During the British period, it is found that Ahirs were engaged in agriculture-animal husbandry and had stayed away from the warlike military lifestyle not only at that time but traditionally as well". The British government refused to recruit Nandvanshi and Gwalvanshi Ahirs in the army, which was opposed by the Ahirs. Then, even before the formation of Ahir Kshatriya Mahasabha to show caste consolidation to the British, to show the Kshatriya origin of all Ahirs and for political mobilization, the Ahir royal family of Rewari wrote to the British government to increase the quota of Ahirs in the army". Similar demands were also made by the Kurmi Sabha to the British for recruitment in the British army. The British did not give any open policy answer; because they needed a large number of soldiers from India in the wars.
-Even before all this, some British officers conducted experiments and trained many cowherd farmers and cattle rearing Ahirs and made them soldiers; those who showed bravery among them were also given land as per the Mughal policy. These soldiers were considered Yaduvanshi (Kshatriya) in the federal structure of Ahirs. The social confusion arising from this process has also been recorded by the British, where they find Ahirs at different places in the social structure.
+== Conclusion ==
+'''Sanskritization and Rajputisation''' were '''complex social processes''' influenced by aspirations for '''higher status, political relevance, and military recognition'''. While many groups adopted '''names, customs, and genealogies''' of upper castes, historical records, inscriptions, and community traditions often '''contradict these retrospective claims'''.
-=== Political and Social Mobility ===
+Maintaining historical accuracy in the face of '''modern identity reconstruction''' remains essential. As '''Professor Srinivas''' noted, the British discontinued caste recording in the census after 1931 due to overwhelming '''manipulation and politicization'''—a legacy that continues to shape Indian social narratives even today.
-In the colonial and post-independence eras, caste identities became tied to political representation, reservation benefits, and social prestige. Adopting Rajput identity often allowed castes to benefit from association with a historically dominant group.