User:TurboSuperA+/sandbox#Kshatriya source review

Kshatriya source review

== Doesn't support the claim ==

Pradeep Barua (2005). The state at war in South Asia. University of Nebraska Press. p. 24. {{Tq|"What made the Rajputs stand out from the rest of Indian society was not their foreign origins but their fanatical attempts to assert their Kshatriya status."}} and Joyce E. Salisbury, Nancy Sullivan (2008). The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Global Medieval Life and Culture. ABC-CLIO. p. 831. {{Tq|"The Rajputs considered them to be members of the ancient Kshatriya varna and were known for their fanatical attempts to assert their Kshatriya status. This assertion distinguished the Rajputs from other similar castes who migrated from outside India."}}
Just because a group "fanatically" asserts something, doesn't make it true.

Kanchan Chandra (2019). Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Head Counts in India. Cambridge University Press. p. 289. "The category "Rajput" is generally used interchangeably with the category "Kshatriya" to describe those who belong to the "twice-born" warrior caste."
The quote is removed from context: the author isn't actually making a normative claim, he is explaining a strategy that some have employed, more complete quote: {{tq|"A second strategy that political entrepreneurs might use is to encourage voters to pass into their “own” category instead. The actions of Rajput entrepreneurs in Gujarat provide one of the many examples of this second strategy. The category “Rajput” is generally used interchangeably with the category “Kshatriya” to describe those who belong to the “twice-born” warrior caste."}}

Harish Damodaran (2008). Banias and Beyond: The Dynamics of Caste and Big Business in Modern India. CASI Working Paper Series. CASI (University of Pennsylvania). {{tq|"That leads to an imperfect articulation of the classical varna system in these regions. This is in direct contrast to mainland Gujarat or the Hindi-speaking belt, where the Rajputs/Thakurs can claim an undisputed Kshatriya legacy."}}
Not published in a journal, no peer review was done on this. Harish Damodaran is [https://casi.sas.upenn.edu/visiting/damodaran a reporter] not an academic scholar.

Robert W. Stern (2003). Changing India: Bourgeois Revolution on the Subcontinent. Cambridge University Press. p. 68. {{tq|"In other parts, Rajput noblemen of indisputable Kshatriya varna demanded hierarchical precedence over Brahmins."}}
Quote is taken out of context, the author is talking about how hierarchies are based on power and influence, he is not making a qualitative judgment of Rajputs status. Quote with context: {{tq|"The varna dharma does not provide for that. It is not a secular hierarchy. But on the ground, it is receptive to secular inputs. In no particular order, the sacred and secular combine. A Brahmin jati may combine its reputational power with the power of landownership and panchayati raj position to secure its place in the local hierarchy. In the Indian countryside, priestly power can be potent. In order to protect their place in the local hierarchy, Brahmins may use their priestly power to legitimate the authority of landholders. That was more or less the hierarchical arrangement of Brahmins and Rajputs in parts of Rajasthan. In other parts, Rajput noblemen of indisputable Kshatriya varna demanded hierarchical precedence over Brahmins. Dalits may deny the legitimacy of any such hierarchy, but be forced by their powerlessness to abide by its rules. A jati of cultivators may be quite indifferent as to who occupies the notional hierarchical top, but feud endlessly with another jati of cultivators over which of them enjoys the higher middle rank."}}

Sabita Singh (2019). The Politics of Marriage in India Gender and Alliance in Rajasthan. Oxford University Press. p. 17. ISBN 9780199098286. {{Tq|"This newly acquired power was legitimized by claiming linkages with the Kshatriya lines of the mythical past, so much so that by the time Nainsi wrote his work, he frequently used the term Kshatriya and Rajput interchangeably."}}
The author is not making a normative claim on the current status of Rajputs/Kshatriyas, but explaining the historical development in medieval India. Quote with context: {{tq|"The practice of new social groups claiming the status of Kshatriya became widespread in the early medieval period. Kshatriya status was sought for the legitimating of their newly acquired power. The early medieval and medieval Rajput clans, representing a mixed caste and constituting a fairly large section of petty chiefs holding estates, achieved political eminence gradually.There was a corresponding relation between the achievement of political eminence by the Pratihars, Guhilas, Chahman, and other clan and their movement towards a respectable social status, namely, acquiring a Kshatriya lineage. In this context, it is important to note that these dynasties claimed descent from ancient Kshatriyas along with their accession to power. So, first there was acquisition of political power. This newly acquired power was legitimized by claiming linkages with the Kshatriya lines of the mythical past, so much so that by the time Nainsi wrote his work, he frequently used the term Kshatriya and Rajput interchangeably."}} next paragraph: {{tq|"Also, a development in the reverse order can be observed as can been seen in the position of some Rajput clans. For example, after coming of the Rathores to Marwar, the various Rajput clans who lived here, turned into ordinary cultivators who paid taxes or did chakri (service) at the new ruler’s palace when the need arose. There were certain groups whose position went further down in the caste hierarchy according to the occupation they adopted. Then they no longer had matrimonial relations with the Rajputs and differences in their customs and tradition also arose.33 The example of the Rajputs getting depressed into cultivating caste can be seen in the Danga Jat, who were initially Chauhan Rajputs. Their ancestor Jagsi, Chaju’s son, became a Jat."}}

Saul David (2003). The Indian Mutiny: 1857. Penguin UK. p. 21. "The Rajputs of western India, whose name was later synonymous with Kshatriya, were descendants of non-Aryan invaders."
The author is not making a normative claim, he is explaining the history: {{tq|"According to the sacred Shastras..."}} then later: {{tq|"The same could be said about caste consciousness in the Bengal Army. According to the Shastras, the role of warrior was confined to “the Shastras, the role of warrior was confined to the Kshatriya class. From the earliest times, however, the Hindu armies of India were composed of men from different varna. The Rajputs of western India, whose name was later synonymous with Kshatriya, were descendants of non-Aryan invaders. Brahmans turned to soldiering because there was not enough employment for priests. At no time in Indian history was there a caste barrier to men serving as soldiers. All this was to change in the late eighteenth century, as Warren Hastings and his successors strove towards the creation of a high-caste monopoly in the Bengal Army.”}}

"Rajputs". encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 14 December 2024. {{tq|"ALTERNATE NAMES: Ksatriya caste"}}
The first sentence of the text makes it clear it is a claim by Rajputs: {{tq|"Rājput" identifies numerous castes in northern and western India that claim ksatriya or "warrior" status in the Hindu social hierarchy.}}

Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf (2002). A Concise History of India. Cambridge University Press. p. 25. {{tq|"Under the Mughals, the term Rajput had become the symbol of legitimate kshatriya rule,..."}}
This is talking about Mughal times, the statement from the RFC doesn't specify a time period. Full context of quote: {{tq|"What Susan Bayly calls ‘paradigmatic case’ of kingly social mobility is that of Shivaji Bhonsle (1630–80), the pivotal figure in the Maratha insurgency that so plagued Aurangzeb in the Deccan. Shivaji was of cultivator background, from peoples known in western India as Marathas. By the sixteenth century, the term ‘Maratha’ had acquired greater respectability through its use by the Deccani sultans as they rewarded these communities for their service as soldiers and office holders. Shivaji’s father served the states of Bijapur and Ahmadnagar, as a senior commander, before unsuccessfully leading his own force against the Mughals. Shivaji himself continued as a rebel fighter. On one famous occasion he pretended to surrender, only to murder the Bijapuri general, Afzal Khan, with a concealed ‘tiger claw’ as he feigned an embrace. Subsequently, he was roundly defeated by Aurangzeb’s Rajput general, Jai Singh, and accepted a mansab in Mughal service, only to defy imperial ritual when he felt slighted by the rank awarded him. Shivaji gained legitimacy from Mughal honours, but he also sought status elsewhere. Under the Mughals, the term Rajput had become the symbol of legitimate kshatriya rule, and so Shivaji determined to acquire that status for himself. He recruited a learned Brahman to his service, as Rajputs typically did. Together with other Brahmans, he provided Shivaji with the ritual genealogical services that legitimized him as a descendant of warrior forebears. In 1674, Shivaji had himself installed as king in elaborate Brahmanic ceremonies. Shivaji exemplifies the role of the successful warrior in fostering formalized caste ideals. He welcomed men of skill and loyalty with no regard to birth, but he subsequently built classifications of jati and varna into his courtly ritual and organization."}}

Cynthia Talbot (2016). The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj Chauhan and the Indian Past, 1200-2000. Cambridge University Press. p. 121. "One way of doing this was through acknowledging the kshatriya status of Rajputs, as Akbar's historian Abu al-Fazl does when discussing caste in Ā'īn-i Akbarī."
This is also talking about historical claims and what was attempted, not making normative statements. Full context: {{tq|"A factor in the growing emphasis on illustrious Rajput ancestry from the sixteenth century onward was the example of the Mughals, who had a considerable interest in their own genealogy. Adding to that were the more restricted avenues for social mobility after the consolidation of the Mughal empire, which ruled out opportunities for military action and made hereditary prestige even more weighty. As Rajput chiefs were increasingly co-opted into the Mughal system, a sharper line was drawn between them and the other, less elite, fighting men of India. One way of doing this was through acknowledging the kshatriya status of Rajputs, as Akbar’s historian Abu al-Fazl does when discussing caste in Ā’īn-i Akbarī. Abu al-Fazl goes on to “record the names of a few of the most renowned [Rajput lineages], that are now in His Majesty’s service,” beginning with the Rathors. The repeated conflation of Rajput with kshatriya that can be witnessed in Prthvīrāj Rāso is thus part of a larger early modern trend of stressing the elite nature of Rajputs, as well as their ancient ancestry."}} next paragraph: {{tq|"Prithviraj’s sāmants were all high-ranking warriors, in the eyes of the Rāso, whose Rajput identity is presented as synonymous with kshatriya status. An example comes from the tale of Nahar Ray, against whom the young Prithviraj fights one of his first battles in the long recension. Seeing that he was losing the fight, Nahar Ray declares, “I am a Rajput and will never retreat from a battleground. Like the polestar, my reputation [nām] shall remain steadfast.” He then turns to his own warriors and exhorts them to be similarly resolute, for changing one’s allegiance was not the kshatriya (chhatri) way. 30 This type of equivalence between kshatriya and Rajput identities is made time and again. The word rajpūtī even appears in the long recension of this epic “in the sense of a kshatriya’s pride and prestige,” as one scholar of Rajput history has observed."}} next paragraph: {{tq|"Prthvīrāj Rāso promoted a sense of Rajput nobility and antiquity by inviting early modern warriors to admire the activities of their ancestors, whose accomplishments in the past served to validate their descendants’ elite position in the present. It also fostered a notion of exclusivity, for only certain specified warrior clans had participated in the glories of Rajput warriorhood in the days of Prithviraj Chauhan. I thus concur with Kolff’s assertion that “since the late sixteenth century, something like a new Rajput Great Tradition emerged which could recognise little else than unilineal kin bodies as the elements of which genuine Rajput history ought to be made up.” Prthvīrāj Rāso played a part in the making of this Rajput Great Tradition, which accepted only genealogical claims to Rajput identity, by presenting a vision of a Rajput past that included representatives from many, but not all, of the lineages of the Mughal era that called themselves Rajput."}}

== Supports the claim ==

Rima Hooja (2006). A History of Rajasthan. Rupa and Co. p. 181. {{tq|"However, epigraphical and literary evidence would indicate that it was probably sometime during the c. twelfth-fourteenth centuries AD period that the usage of terms like Rajputra, Kshatriya, Rautt and similar words denoting connections with kingship, and Rajput became established as more or less synonymous words."}}
This source supports the claim. It isn't supported by the cited part, but actually by the preceding paragraph: {{tq|"Interestingly, the various Rajput clans themselves are not bothered by origin-debates, nor by crises of self-identity, since the popular common belief— among Rajputs as well as non-Rajputs — remains that the Rajputs are warriors (Kshatriyas) with long and ancient warrior lineages. As such, twentieth century Rajputs accept, without any hesitation, the traditional genealogies which have been handed down to them as part of their heritage, and which are still recounted to them at ceremonial occasions by their bards (Charans, Barhats, Badvas, Bhats etc.). (In this context, it is interesting to note that, according to their own respective traditions and histories, several of the Rajput ancestral clans or dynasty founders migrated to present day Rajasthan from elsewhere)."}}

John Mcleod, Kunwar P Bhatnagar (2001). "The deaths of Prithviraj". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 24 (2), 91-105, 2001. Taylor & Francis: 91-105. {{tq|"As the modern representatives of the Kshatriyas, the Rajputs regard themselves as natural rulers and warriors, and it is expected that their lives will demonstrate leadership and martial skill."}}
Full quote: {{tq|"The Rajputs are a group of Hindu clans that for many centuries dominated a large swath of northern India. In much of modern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, they were the principal landholders, and Rajput kings ruled in Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh until 1948-1949.36 There has been much scholarly speculation on the formation of the Rajput caste. The most plausible theory is that at some point between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries (the date is hotly debated), unrelated ruling and landholding families in north India began to identify themselves as a community, following certain cultural practices, intermarrying with one another, and tracing their descent from the Kshatriyas or warriors and kings of ancient India. Eventually, the name Rajput ('king's son') was applied to the members of this community."}} next paragraph: {{tq|"As the modern representatives of the Kshatriyas, the Rajputs regard themselves as natural rulers and warriors, and it is expected that their lives will demonstrate leadership and martial skill.38 These qualities were fostered not to bring glory to the individual or benefit to the country, but rather to uphold the honour of the clan and its tutelary goddess. The Rajput caste is divided into clans; traditional enumerations reckon the number of clans at thirty-six, although the actual total is higher.39 Members of a given clan claim a common ancestry, although this is often fictitious. It appears that as the concept of Rajput status came into being, certain dynasties of kings and landholders were recognised as clans, and others - even if they were not genealogically related - identified themselves as members of those clans."}}

== Unclear ==

Dwijendra Tripathi (1984). Business Communities of India: A Historical Perspective. Manohar. {{Tq|"The Rajputs were one caste which had an undisputed claim to belong to Kshatriya varna."}}
No page provided, couldn't find an OCR'd copy, fails WP:V.

Kumar Suresh Singh (1996). Communities, Segments, Synonyms, Surnames and Titles. Anthropological Survey of India. p. 1706. "Rajput synonyms: Chhatri, Kshatriya, Thakur"
Can't find it, fails WP:V. It could also be another case of claiming status.

Charles Miller (2024). Martial races as clubs? The institutional logic of the martial race system of British India. Rationality and Society. SAGE journals. "In fact, the British considered Rajput to be synonymous with the kshatriya warrior caste which they traced back to India's earliest times."
Can't find the full article, but the quoted part begs the question, why are British colonisers considered an authority on castes in India?

Charles Fawcett (1947). The Travels of the Abbé Carré in India and the Near East, 1672 to 1674. Taylor & Francis. {{tq|"The Rajputs (as opposed to other Hindu soldiers, who are classed as Sudras) are accepted by popular opinion as the modern representatives of Kshatriya, or warrior, caste..."}}
Can't find the quoted sentence, fails WP:V.

Prathama Banerjee, ed. (2024). Textual Lives of Caste Across the Ages: Hierarchy, Humanity and Equality in Indian History. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 186. "In his descriptions of caste groups, Abu'l Fazal devotes more space to the kshatriyas and includes the Rajputs, allies of the Mughals, in this group."
Can't find the book, fails WP:V.