From eighteenth century A.D., the historians are working on the history of Rajasthan. But the history of Rajasthan is far much older than the origin of the name of Rajasthan. We know that Rajasthan was not a political unit before independence of India. Rajasthan was divided in small Rajput Principalities. So the work of historians were also scattered and there are many Gaps in Rajasthan History.
Rajasthan would not have come into existence, but for the political conflagration which with the advent of the Turks, overtook Northern India, and which, besides elbowing out the Rajput clans from the centres of their power, also delimited the field of their activity to the arid region which afforded protection to them from adversity, though only for a short while.
Even so, these small units of powerful tribes continued to linger on in the Gangetic plains and they persistently bade defiance to the supreme power of Delhi and Agra. They came to be styled as Zortalab Zamindars.
Which means that the history of Rajasthan should be surveyed in the broader perspective of the history of Rajputs, who, for about six hundred years played a dominant role, almost, in the entire subcontinent.
That their political and cultural supremacy survived for such a long duration of time bears eloquent testimony to their qualities of head and heart. Why they were in the end squeezed out of their possession and prestige may be compared to and explained by the similar inexorable fate which overtook the mightiest empires in other parts of the world. But there is a vital difference between what happened in our country and elsewhere.
Whereas in Europe and some parts of Asia, the disintegration of powerful and extensive empires was followed by the emergence of smaller and compact states which subsequently assumed the form of nation states, such a development is conspicuous by its absence in India. Hence smaller states did certainly emerge into existence, but they could not integrate themselves into nation states. How to account for it?
According to C. V. Vaidya, during the six centuries of the Rajput supremacy three sets of states successively came into existence. This was the period of imperialism when the rulers vied with eachother for the title of Chakravartin.
But from the end of the tenth century till the beginning of the thirteenth century there occurred internecine political conflicts and convulsions in Northern India, as in the rest of Asia.
These convulsions, besides affecting adversely political unity and stability, also sapped the financial resources and the man power of the Rajput states. Moreover, they brought in their train a feeling of utter exhaustion among the masses who became disinterested in the military squabbles and watched with sullen resentment the waxing and the waning fortunes of the successive dynasties.
Without the willing or passive cooperation and sympathy of the people it was impossible to sustain a compact or corporate state. The gulf between the people and their political leaders became
unbridgeable and hence the concept of common interest could not develop or flourish, Thus, although there was no dearth of smaller or larger Rajput states, they were devoid of such ingredients as transform a political or regional unit into a nation state.
With the migration of the various Rajput clans from Northern India in the face of the Turkish expansion, there opened a new political phase, which may be called a struggle between imperial feudalism and parochial or clan-feudalism; the strength of the former lay in its compact solidarity and superior resourcefulness and the weakness of the latter lay in their petty rivalries and jealousies.
We may not believe in the Agnikul theory of the origin of the Rajputs, but it does bring out one important phase, namely the desire to coalesce divergent groups under a single paternity. Nevertheless in the fraternity so visualised the clans composing it remained a divided house, which present a vital rhythm in the history of Rajasthan. It created perpetual and multifacial tension or tensions affecting ruthlessly political, social and economic trends.
In the field of politics the tension revolved round the ambition and insatiable lust for territorial aggrandisement, each clan being keen to grab as much of land as possible, because without the possession of land royal prestige was meaningless and resources for the maintenance of political hegemony out of reach.
Thus the ownership of land became the major cause of tension not only among the states but also among feudatories of a state. Incidentally, it may be noted that the Rajput feudalism had its own peculiar characteristic. It developed both from the bottom to the top and from the top to the bottom responding to varying facts and conditions. It was pre-eminently clannish and it produced multitudinous ramifications and baffling complications.
Another aspect of this tension grew out of the deep-rooted sentiment of clan superiority, which tragically vitiated political and socio-economic values, besides creating disastrous confusion in the inter-state relations.
It is a strange irony of fate that, though the Rajputs have been styled as the defenders of Hindu tradition, the princely families in their matrimonial alliances broke every shastric injunction and every accepted norm. To cite some examples, the reciprocal matrimonial connections between the Sisodias of Mewar and the Kachhwahas of Amber, between the Kachhawahas of Amber and the Rathors of Jodhpur are unabashed travesties of the laws of Manu.
In most cases such marriages were dictated only by considerations of political convenience or expediency, throwing with impunity to winds the sacred Hindu traditions.
But instead of resolving political problems such alliances very often rendered confusion worse confounded. Occasionally a Rajput prince, while giving the hand of his daughter in marriage to his brother chief, made a stipulation that succession to his gaddi would devolve on her male issue. The consequences of this socio-political tension have not been analysed so far, although they merit careful study.
Another rhythm in the politico-economic tension was engendered by the cherished right of the liege-lord to confer the privileges and possession on the successor of a deceased feudatory.
The normal convention was that on the demise of a thikanedar his thikana was deemed to have lapsed to the sovereign power and its restoration to his heir was conditioned by a prescribed formal procedure which need must be detailed. Generally, the claim based on primogeniture was recognised; but there were not a few exceptions.
On such occasions, the liege-lord enhanced his demands either in terms of ready presents or the rate of revenue demand which led to bargaining and misunderstanding, sometimes even to revolt. A number of valuable theses have dealt at length with the relations of the nobles with their overlords. But not until all the states have been brought within this purview of such assessment, would it be possible to deter mine the overall impact of this type of tension on the contemporary politico-economic developments.
It, however, would be preposterous to assume that the enhancement of the demands by the rulers (was always arbitrary. It is very likely that at a particular juncture they stood in need of rehabilitating their financial resources or that they desired to curb the latent or patent spirit of insubordination in the feudatory.
This hypothesis required a deep and comprehensive probe in view of the generally asserted view that the princes of Rajasthan were essentially exploiters and that they did not care for the well-being of either their feudal barons or the people. There spect and the loyalty, which they constantly enjoyed, runs counter to the plausible theory of exploitation.
Now adverting to religious tension it may be stated that the political impact of the Turks brought in its train many social changes in this region as elsewhere. Sufism was ushered in by the famous Chishti faqir, Sheikh Muinuddin Chishti, who earned universal popularity.
In course of time there came into existence a number of Muslim communities which retained their original Hindu affiliations. Qaimkhanies is a relevant example, which conclusively illustrates that the hatred against the Muslims was not motivated by religious considerations but was caused by their military fanaticism.
As a general rule the two communities maintained peaceful relations between them because there is hardly any record of communal riots in this region. It is true that radical changes in the Hindu social structure are hardly perceptible, but that there was change in the religious. outlook of the masses in general cannot be denied.
A host of Muslim pirs began to be worshipped, and the popular figures of devotion and esteem formed a mixed mileu which paved the way for compromise and adjustment and removed misunderstanding.
Things came to such a pass that, subsequently, Rana Sanga of the Khanva fame took up the cause of the Muslim Lodi refugees and the Muslims and the Rajputs fought shoulder to shoulder against the Mughal intruder. Indeed the rhythm of Hindu-Muslim religious tension has been over tuned. In striking contrast among Hindus, caste tension occasionally did erupt, but they should be traced to socio-economic factors.
Popular forms of faith, though branched out of religious philosophy or simple modifications of it, represented challenges to conservatism and orthodoxy. They influenced the spiritual life of the people to a large extent; they were the gifts of local saints who by their piety and renunciation brought within the fold of their teachings large number of men belonging to every community.
But the evolution of popular religions did not prevent the cultivation and study of philosophy and a number of Rajput princes made valuable contributions to religious thought. But, judging as a whole, there was hardly any originality in it. It only elaborated the classical concepts. But sometimes their devotion to a particular sect. did create family or local tensions. An overall picture of this development is awaiting the defiant hand of a historian.
Growth of trade and commerce implies development of means of communication, a net-work of roads and establishment of market places, towns and cities. In this way the process of urbanisation of Rajasthan becomes an interesting subject of study with its many sided implications.
The foundation of new cities must have affected the distribution of population, because new towns must have attracted the inhabitants of rural areas in large numbers affording to them incentives of gainful employment. What the effect of such migration on rural economy was has yet to be assessed.
Moreover, it has also to be determined whether the construction of roads was motivated mainly by military considerations or otherwise, its object was also promotion of commerce or was both.
A clear elucidation of these problems will throw much light on some aspects of political complications besides bringing into bold relief economic changes in the life of the people. In other words, the road system should be linked up both with the economic and political strategy and its ramifications should be carefully examined.
If the roads were the architects of Rajasthan, its forts were its life-blood. They were not only the bulwarks of its defence, they were also centres of socio-economic activity. They were miniature townships, self-sufficient and pulsating with life.
How various martial and non-martial communities were accommodated in them has to be illustrated. In a way, they might be compared to the temples of Northern and Central India. They catered equally in the military and social development of the people and promoted the sense of corporate living. Their history has yet to be written particularly with the view-points of their economic impact on the resources of the State.
Rajasthan presents a contradictory and paradoxical phenomenon of exuberance of wealth and rank poverty. This is summarily explained away either by the so-called theory of exploitation or by the low fecundity of soil.
But from the socio-economic point of view the explanation is not entirely satisfactory, because it neither accounts for the source of wealth nor for the cause or causes of grinding poverty. Conceding that a large portion of the land of this region is barren and produces only one crop in a year there are also fertile oases in the desert.
If due consideration is given to its physiological contours, it would be clear that the land was not always so inhospitable or sandy as it is today. If it were so, it would have not attracted large scale migration from the Gangetic plains.
Moreover, continuous internecine warfare and the availability of resources to finance them belie such presumptions. Again, the common man or woman of Rajasthan is not indolent or reluctant to work. Why then affluence evaded him or her is, on the face of it, a mystery.
It has to be solved by an analysis of socio-economic traditions current in this region. Among the masses imbalance of values was certainly a potent cause of their poverty. Add to this, the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a particular community.
A logical corollary of the affluence of some communities of Rajasthan was and is their interest in the creation of wealth. Evidently, agriculture could not be its source and industry was limited in its seope and ramifications.
The only basic raw material produced on a large scale was wool; next to it came cotton. But there is no record of the development of the woollen or cotton industries in Rajasthan, as was the case in the neighbouring states of Gujarat or Berar. So a presumption may be hazarded.
And it is that the affluent community of this region promoted money-lending business and became expert in it. It lent out large sums either willingly or under pressure to the ruling classes and must have also invested in external and internal trade and commerce.
Rajasthan was the connecting link between the Punjab and Gujarat and Northern India and the Deccan. It witnessed large scale exchange of commodities between these regions.
In the contemporary records there is ample material for elucidating the ramifications and trends of the current trade and commerce and for preparing charts of current prices and their rise and fall. How did it affect the standard of life of the masses and the economic resources of various states depleting or adding to their power of conflict and existence.
There is copious proof of large scale lending to the ruling class by the business community and this community was extremely shrewd. It was loth to take any risk without calculating corresponding benefits or advantages both in terms of cash and kind.
Having placed the royalty and nobility under the obligation of debt, it was not unnatural on its part to squeeze out concessions of varied types. Thus the basic questions which emerge out are: What was the influence of this community on current politics? What patent or latent power did it wield? How did it use this power?
Now adverting to the business transactions of this community, so far as the internal trade and commerce is concerned, it must have and did control it on a large scale as it does today. But when we turn towards its external ramifications very interesting aspects attract our attention.
It may be noted in this context that in that age there were no business cartels or companies. It was the individual who was the main spring of monetary transactions and who created the goodwill for himself.
His integrity and honesty vouched his reliability in other parts where he established either his units of activity or formed contacts with his compeers in the field. It may also be noted that Rajasthan occupied a strategic position from the point of view of both external and internal trade of Northern India.
The involvement of the business community of this region in it, therefore, was inevitable. To what extent such commercial activity helped the creation of wealth inside Rajasthan is a subject of absorbing interest. Should the history of these business communities be ignored? It. is as much relevant to the past as to the present because of the continuity of its healthy and sound traditions.
The Birlas, the Singhanias and the Jaipurias belong to Rajasthan. Their firms have emerged out of individuals. Just as they exercise direct influence on the present day society and politics, their predecessors must have played similar role in the past. Dr. Dwijendra Tripathi of Ahmadabad is currently engaged in the study of banking houses; the same line of enquiry may be profitably pursued for Rajasthan as well.
During the last quarter of the present century the dimensions of historical study have considerably widened and its contents have radically changed. Now there is greater emphasis on socio-economic and socio-political evolution.
Man instead of prince, community instead of individual, has become the central object of research and enquiry, and this in tune with new environments and new currents of thought. And although this trend lays exclusive stress on economic factors and forces to the utter exclusion of religion in the context of socio-economic developments, the influence of religion can neither be ignored nor underestimated.
Religion has been and to a certain extent is still the bed-rock of Indian social structure. And it is difficult to separate it completely from social and economic evolution. In the parochial and feudal conditions of Rajasthan it was a force to be reckoned with.
I have read two theses submitted to the University of Rajasthan; one dealing with the religious currents in the medieval period and the other giving a picture of popular beliefs and superstitions.
They were interesting in their own way, but they did not bring out the impact of religion on contemporary politics, although there is no dearth of material on the subject. The Nath sect and later on the Jogies closely involved themselves in politics; the former by playing upon the sentiments of their patrons and the latter by lending their military support in times of crisis.
But this is only one aspect of the problem. Its other concomitant is its impact on society and the changes it brought about in the caste system. It is a strange phenomenon that though some of the Rajput princes subscribed to the tenets of Vaishnavism, they did not renounce violence.
Indeed, violence was woven in the texture of the Rajput social structure, and at no stage of its evolution could it be eliminated. It permeated the political outlook of the ruling classes which resorted to the worst tactics throwing to the wind all scruples for moral values, for filial loyalty or blood relationship.
To them the end justified the means, however unclean it might be, Murder of parents, brothers, sisters and other near and dear ones was a common feature among the royalty and nobility of Rajasthan, and in this respect it was worse than the contemporary Turkish royalty and nobility.
How far religions justified this kind of brutality is a question which demands a reasonable and satisfactory answer. It is impossible to defend it. The role of political violence in the state politics is a subject worth study.
And this raises another issue of inquiry which is of a politico-religious nature. It is generally asserted and for no valid reasons that the Turkish state in India was dominated by the Ulema and other orthodox sections.
One is tempted to ask how far the Rajput polity was secular in its outlook! This aspect to my knowledge has not been explored although it deserves to be and can be investigated with prospects of interesting conclusions. We have to discover basic reasons for the admixture of religion and politics in Rajasthan in order to have a correct and clear picture of the contemporary conditions without any patent imbalances.
Indeed the history of Rajasthan is an integral part of the history of India, Even after it has been reduced to parochial dimensions, each unit of it was pulsating with the age ideals and age-long traditions. It could not exist in isolation in any sphere of life.
For the first three hundred years (1206-1526) it was joined in a grim struggle with the Sultans of Delhi or with the offshoots of the disintegrated empire which had emerged on its peripheries. Then it had to face the Mughal aggression which proved more penetrating and more abiding.
After the disruption of the imperial fabric it had to face the challenge of the Marathas. And although there was much in common between the Maratha clan-feudalism and the Rajput tribal feudalism, the latter reeled under the impact of the former. Consequent upon these military and political upheavals and the interruptions which considerably sapped its vitality it fell like a ripe fruit into the hands of the British.
But its social economy was not appreciably disrupted. How far it was able to sustain these external impacts is a problem for a research student to assess. Credit must be given to the Mughals for integrating the warring states of Rajasthan into a single unit.
Characterized by local autonomy the Mughal impact on the life of Rajasthan has deep and wide span. It modified its administrative structure. In certain respects it changed the social values and relations of the royalty and nobility, but it did not appreciably touch the religious trends. It failed to eliminate the basic backlog of clan stultification.
On the other hand it clustered serious complications in the relation between the feudal chiefs and their overlords. The internal autonomy guaranteed to the ruling princes, in the practice of granting assignments in the shape of jagirs created problems which defied solution. Thus the consequences of the Mughal impact on the Rajput feudalism need must be examined in all its bearings.
In sheer volume the basic material available in the public and private repositories of Rajasthan, for the time being, defies assessment. And most of it pertains to the parochial period of its history. This material is being utilised by a band of research students and scholars with zeal and devotion. A number of interesting and thought- provoking monographs have been published and more of them are being prepared.
This is very encouraging, but my regret is that all this useful effort is only one sided. Implicit faith is being reposed in the indigenous records, and I have not come across a single work, published or unpublished, in which a critical estimate of these records has been made.
The need for discovering new facts or eulogizing the position of rulers or system overcomes- all regard for judicious impartiality. In other words, though Rajasthan was more isolated from the rest of the sub-continent, its history is being written and treated in isolation and not in the broad perspective of India. This attitude is fraught with dangerous implications, especially as regards the accuracy of conclusions.
It needs no argument to prove that the history of Rajasthan is only one facet of the history of Northern India; the other facet is provided by the activities of the Sultans of Delhi and the Mughal rulers of Agra and Delhi and the third by the Marathas. Curiously enough, the history of the Marathas is popular in Rajasthan, but not that of the Turks who, comparatively speaking, did less harm to this region.
The story of the impact of the Sultans is depressing; not so the story of the Mughals. Though it was subversive of parochial independence, it provided an intensive field for winning glory and fame to the scions of the princely families. Man Singh, Raja Bhim, Jai Singh I and Jai Singh II and a host of others are names still to be conjured with. There were brave warriors and accomplished statesmen, whose achievements were many-sided.
This article is an short attempt to elucidate the gaps in Rajasthan history but there may be many more gaps.
Contribution Of Scholars To Fill Up The Gaps in Rajasthan History
Many scholars in this field have worked a lot to fill up the gaps in Rajasthan history. Mahamahopadhyaya Gauri Shankar Hira Chand Ojha and Sir Jadu Nath Sarkar will ever be remembered as the doyen of the historians of Rajasthan.
Munshi Devi Prasad, Pandit Ramkaran Asopa, Pandit Bishwhwar Nath Reu, Harvilas Sarda and Jadgish Singh Gehlot are some other prominent names of historians, who have waxed through the tangled history of this land.
Dr. M. L. Sharma, Dr. Dasharatha Sharma, Dr. Gopi Nath Sharma form a trio which has rendered invaluable service to the cause of history. Muni Jinvijaya and Dr. Raghuvir Singha are also very important historians whose knowledge and critical acumen is a source of inspiration to many scholars.
Contribution of scholars Institutions To Fill Up The Gaps in Rajasthan History
Besides these individuals, there are many institutions which are engaged in research in this region, of these the Oriental Research Institute Jodhpur, Rajasthan Shodh Sansthan Choupasani, Maharaja Mansingh Pustak Prakash etc. have brought to light much new material in this field.
