Castes Claiming Rajput Identity

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.