Editing Rajput (section)

===''Rajput''===

The term ''rajput'' is derived from the Sanskrit word ''rājaputra''.<ref>
*{{cite web |url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/490157/Rajput |title=Rajput |publisher=Encyclopædia Britannica |access-date=3 November 2024}}
*{{cite web|website=encyclopaedia.com |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/anthropology-and-archaeology/people/rajputs#:~:text=%22Rajput%22%20identifies%20numerous%20ksatriya%20or,states%20into%20the%20Rajputana%20Province.|title=Rajputs|access-date=3 November 2024}}
*{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aVd9xS4yo04C&dq=Rajput+derived+from+rajaputra&pg=PA77 |page=77 |author=Vipul Singh |publisher=Macmillan |quote=These so called 'warrior castes' were in effect nothing but military ruling clans which coalecsed into a single caste, that of the Rajputs, the term being derived from the Sanskrit word ''Rajaputra''. |year=2008|title=Interpreting Medieval India: Early medieval, Delhi Sultanate, and regions (circa 750-1550)|isbn=978-0230637610}}
*{{Cite book|quote=The term Rajput was derived from the word ''rajaputra''.|author=Kaushik Roy|page=75 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xx7ICQAAQBAJ&dq=Rajput+derived+from+rajaputra&pg=PA75 |title=Warfare in Pre-British India – 1500BCE to 1740CE |year=2015 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-1317586920}}</ref> Its literal meaning is "son of a king".<ref name=kolff/> The term finds mention in [[Vidyapati]]'s ''[[Kīrtilatā]]'' (1380) among castes inhabiting the [[Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh|Jaunpur]] city.<ref>
*{{cite journal|title=Society in the Kirtilata of Vidyapati|journal=Proceedings of the Indian History Congress |volume=67 |pages=288, 291|author=Kamal Deo|date=2006 |publisher=Indian History Congress|jstor=44147948 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/44147948|quote=Page 288— Vidyapati comments on the social composition of Jaunpur town also."In the city, people of different caste and class of Hindu religion were living. In the city, mostly they were Brahmin, Kayasth, Rajput and Businessmen."<br>Page 291— बहुल बाहम्ण बहुल काअत्थ , राजपुत्त कुल बहुल , बहुल जाति मिलि बसइ चप्परि ।}}
*{{cite book|title=Perspectives on Indian Society and History: A Critique|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kwxuAAAAMAAJ&q=Vidyapati+uses+the+local+term+rajput|page=114|author=Hetukar Jha| date=2002 |publisher=Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 2002|isbn=8173044228|quote=Included in this list is the Rajputra, though ''VR'' mentions it separately, which again is a term that appears in contemporary Sanskrit literature. However, Vidyapati uses the local term Rajput.}}</ref>

According to modern scholars, the word "rajput" meant 'horse soldier', 'trooper', 'headman of a village' or 'subordinate chief' before the 15th century.<ref name=kolff>{{cite book|quote=Inevitably , a certain group identity grew up amongst these families : it was summed up in the name of Rajput . This word literally means 'son of a king'. At first used to denote various individuals who achieved such statuses as ' horse - soldier', 'trooper' or 'headman of a village' , and then pretended to the family of some king, it became a generic name for this military and landed class as a whole. |url=https://archive.org/details/naukarrajputsepo0000kolf/page/71/mode/1up?q=Pretended |author=Dirk H. A. Kolff |title=Naukar, Rajput, and Sepoy The Ethnohistory of the Military Labour Market of Hindustan, 1450-1850 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1990 |isbn=0521381320 |page=71}}</ref>{{sfn|Hastings|2002|p=54|ps=:The Indian historian K. R. Qanungo has pointed out that in " the middle ages ' Rajput ' ordinarily meant a trooper in the service of a chief or a free-lance captain(1960,98); and Dirk Kolff(1990), following both Quango and D.C.Sircar has surely settled the matter with his argument that many Rajput clans came out of pastoralist bands which achieved some degree of landed status in the first half of the second millennium, forming "largely open status groups of clans, lineages, or even families and individuals who achieved statuses as 'horse soldier', 'trooper' or 'headman of village', and pretended to be connected with the family of some king, it became a generic name for this military and landed class(p 71-72) }}<ref name="Peabody2003"/><ref name="Mukta1994"/><ref name=stish/> Individuals or groups with whom the word "rajput" was associated are generally considered ''varna–samkara'' ("mixed caste origin") and inferior to Kshatriya.{{sfn|Norman Ziegler|1976|p=141|ps=:...individuals or groups with which the word was associated were generally considered to owe their origin to miscegenation or varna-samkara ("the mixing of castes") and were thus inferior in rank to Ksatriyas. [...] What I perceive from the above data is a rather widespread change in the subjective perception and the attribution of rank to groups and individuals who emerged in Rajasthan and North India as local chiefs and rulers in the period after the muslim invasions(extending roughly from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries). These groups were no longer considered kshatriyas and though they filled roles previously held by kshatriyas and were attributed similar functions of sustaining society and upholding the moral order, they were either groups whose original integrity were seen to have been altered or who had emerged from the lower ranks of the caste system. This change is supported by material from the Rajput chronicles themselves.}}<ref name="Mukta1994">{{cite book |author=Parita Mukta |title=Upholding the Common Life: The Community of Mirabai |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DlVuAAAAMAAJ |year=1994 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-563115-9 |page=51 |quote=The term 'Rajput' before the fifteenth century meant 'horse soldier', 'trooper', 'headman of a village' or 'subordinate chief'. Moreover, individuals with whom the word was associated were generally considered to be products of varna–samkara of mixed caste origin, and thus inferior in rank to Kshatriyas (Ziegler, 1976, 242--3.)}}</ref><ref name=stish>{{harvnb|Satish Chandra|1982|p=92}}: "D.C Sarkar has noted that in the period before the Muslim invasions, the word Rajput had, apart from Rajputra, had, various meanings, including horse-soldier, trooper, headman of village, subordinate chief., etc. In addition, he notes that individuals or groups with whom the word was associated with are generally considered to be varnasanakara, of mixed caste origin, and thus inferior in rank to Kshatriyas."</ref>

B.D Metcalf and T.R Metcalf write that under the [[Mughals]], the term had become the mark of legitimate kshatriya rule.<ref>{{Cite book|quote=The challenges to Aurangzeb did not come from groups that had been suppressed under Muslim rule and now sought to regain their Autonomy. Marathas, Sikhs, Jats and even Rajputs represented social groups with old names but new cohesion and status. These were not age-old India 'castes'.[...]There was in practice, far more importance given to occupational identities and individual mobility than most commentators have recognized. A major stimulus to the use of the Sanskrit categories appears to have been the claims of aspiring dynasts in the Mughal period who as parvenu Kshatriyas, in turn identified peasants and soldiery as ranked groups, giving new meanings to old titles that had only loose regional or occupational meaning.[...]Under the Mughals, the term ''Rajput'' had become the symbol of legitimate kshatriya rule,...|page=24,25 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jGCBNTDv7acC&dq=Rajput+legitimate+kshatriya&pg=PA24 |title=A Concise History of India |publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2002 |author=Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf|isbn=978-0-521-63974-3 }}</ref>