One of the merits of Tod’s work is that, though his knowledge of ethnology was imperfect, and he was unable to reject the local chronicles of the Rājputs, he advocated, in anticipation of the conclusions of later scholars, the so-called “Scythic” origin of the race. To make up for the lack of direct evidence of Scythian manners and sociology to support this position, he was forced to rely on certain superficial resemblances of custom and belief, not between Rājputs, Scythians and Huns, but between Rājputs, Getae or Thracians, or the Germans of Tacitus. In the same way a supposed identity of name led him to identify the Jāts of northern India with the Getae or with the Goths, and finally to bring them with the Jutes into Kent.
A similar process of groping in semi-darkness induced him to make constant references to serpent worship, which, as Sir E. Tylor remarked, "years ago fell into the hands of speculative writers who mixed it up with occult philosophies, druidical mysteries, and that portentous nonsense called the ‘Arkite symbolism,’ till now sober students hear the very name of ophiolatry with a shudder."[[6]] He repeatedly speaks of a people whom he calls the “Takshaks,” apparently one of the Scythian tribes. There is, however, no reason to believe that serpent worship formed an important element in the beliefs of the Scythians, or to suppose that the cult, as we observe it in India, is of other than indigenous origin.
The more recent views of the origin of the Rājputs may be briefly illustrated in connexion with some of the leading septs. Dr. Vincent A. Smith holds that the term Kshatriya was not an ethnical but an occupational designation. Rājaputra, ‘son of a Rāja,’ seems to have been a name applied to the cadets of ruling houses who, according to the ancient custom of tribal society, were in the habit of seeking their fortunes abroad, winning by some act of valour the hand of the princess whose land they visited, and with it the succession to the kingdom vested in her under the system of Mother Right. Sir James Frazer has described various forms of this mode of succession in the case of the Kings of Rome, Ashanti, Uganda, in certain Greek States, and other places.[[7]] Dr. Smith goes on to say: “The term Kshatriya was, I believe, always one of very vague meaning, simply denoting the Hindu ruling classes which did not claim Brahmanical descent. Occasionally a rājā might be a Brahman by caste, but the Brahman’s place at court was that of a minister rather than that of king.”[[8]] This office in Rajputana, as we learn from numerous instances in The Annals, was often taken by members of the Bania or mercantile class, because the Brāhmans of the Desert, by their laxity of practice, had acquired an equivocal reputation, and were generally illiterate. The Rājput has always, until recent times, favoured the Bhāt or bard more than the Brāhman.
The group denoted by the name Kshatriya or Rājput thus depended on status rather than on descent, and it was therefore possible for foreigners to be introduced into the tribes without any violation of the prejudices of caste, which was then only partially developed. In later times, under Brāhman guidance, the rules of endogamy, exogamy, and confarreatio have been definitely formulated. But as the power of the priesthood increased, it was necessary to disguise this admission of foreigners under a convenient fiction. Hence arose the legend, told in two different forms in The Annals, which describes how, by a solemn act of purification or initiation, under the superintendence of one of the ancient Vedic Rishis or inspired saints, the “fire-born” septs were created to help the Brāhmans in repressing Buddhism, Jainism, or other heresies, and in establishing the ancient traditional Hindu social policy, the temporary downfall of which, under the stress of foreign invasions, is carefully concealed in the Hindu sacred literature. This privilege was, we are told, confined to four septs, known as Agnikula, or ‘fire-born’—the Pramār, Parihār, Chālukya or Solanki, and the Chauhān. But there is good reason to believe that the Pramār was the only sept which laid claim to this distinction before the time of the poet Chānd, who flourished in the twelfth century of our era.[[9]] The local tradition in Rājputāna was so vague that in one version of the story Vasishtha, in the other Visvāmitra, is said to have been the officiating priest.
In the case of the Sesodias of Mewār, Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar has given reasons to believe that Gehlot or Guhilot means simply ‘son of Guhila,’ an abbreviation of Guhadatta, the name of its founder.[[10]] He is said to have belonged to the Gurjara stock, kinsmen or allies of the Huns who entered India about the sixth century of our era, and founded a kingdom in Rājputāna with its capital at Bhilmāl or Srīmāl, about fifty miles from Mount Ābu, the scene of the regeneration of the Rājputs. This branch, which took the name of Maitrika, is said to be closely connected with the Mer tribe, which gave its name to Merwāra, and is fully described in The Annals. The actual conqueror of Chitor, Bāpa or Bappa, is said in inscriptions to have belonged to the branch known as Nāgar, or ‘City’ Brāhmans which has its present headquarters at the town of Vadnagar in the Baroda State. This conversion of a Brāhman into a Rājput is at first sight startling, but the fact implies that the institution of caste, as we observe it, was then only imperfectly established, and there was no difficulty in believing that a Brāhman could be ancestor of a princely house which now claims descent from the Sun. As will appear later on, Bāpa seems to be a historical personage. These facts help us to understand the strange story in The Annals, which tells how Gohāditya received inauguration as chief by having his forehead smeared with blood drawn from the finger of a Bhīl, a form of the blood covenant which appears among many savage tribes.[[11]] In those days no definite line was drawn between the Bhīls, now a wild forest tribe, and the Rājputs. The Bhīls were the free lords of the jungle, original owners of the soil, and though they practised rites and followed customs repulsive to orthodox Hindus, they did not share in the impurity which attached to foul outcastes like the Dom or the Chandāla. As the Bhīls were believed to be autochthonous, and thus understood the methods of controlling or conciliating the local spirits, by this form of inauguration they passed on their knowledge to the Rājputs whom they accepted as their lords. The relations of the Mīnas, another jungle tribe of the same class, with the Kachhwāhas of Jaipur were of the same kind.
According to the bardic legend given in The Annals, the Rāthors, the second great Rājput clan, owed their origin to a migration of a body of its members to the western Desert when the territory of Kanauj was conquered by Shihābu-d-dīn in A.D. 1193. But it is now certain that the ruling dynasty of Kanauj belonged, not to the Rāthor, but to the Gaharwār clan, and that the first Rāthor settlement in Rājputāna must have occurred anterior to the conquest of Kanauj by the Musalmāns. An inscription, dated A.D. 997, found in the ruins of the ancient town of Hathūndi or Hastikūndi in the Bali Hakūmat of the Jodhpur State, names four Rāthor Rājas who reigned there in the tenth century.[[12]] The local legend is an attempt to connect the line of Rāthor princes with the Kanauj dynasty. It has been suggested that the Deccan dynasty of the Rāshtrakūtas which, in name at least, is identical with Rāthor, reigning at Nāsik or Malkhed from A.D. 753 to 973, was connected with the Reddis or Raddis, a caste of cultivators which seem to have migrated from Madras into the Deccan at an early period. But any racial connexion between the Deccan Reddis and the Rāthors of Rājputāna is very doubtful.[[13]]
The Chandel clan, ranked in The Annals among the Thirty-six Royal Races, is believed to be closely connected with the Bhars and Gonds, forest tribes of Bundelkhand and the Central Provinces. Mr. R. V. Russell prefers to connect them with the Bhars alone, on the ground that the Gonds, according to the best traditions, entered the Central Provinces from the south, and made no effective settlement in Bundelkhand, the headquarters of the Chandels.[[14]] But there was a Gond settlement in the Hamīrpur District of Bundelkhand, and the close connexion between the Gonds and the Chandels began in what is now the Chhatarpur State.
The results of recent investigations into Rājput ethnology are thus of great importance, and enable us to correct the bardic legends on which the genealogies recorded in The Annals were founded. Much remains to be done before the question can be finally settled. The local Rājput traditions and the ballads of the bards must be collected and edited; the ancient sites in Rājputāna must be excavated; physical measurements, now somewhat discredited as a test of racial affinities, must be made in larger numbers and by more scientific methods. But the general thesis that some of the nobler Rājput septs are descended from Gurjaras or other foreigners, while others are closely connected with the autochthonous races, may be regarded as definitely proved.
One of the most valuable parts of The Annals is the chapter describing the popular religion of Mewār, the festival and rites in honour of Gauri, the Mother goddess. There are also many incidental notices of cults and superstitions scattered through the work. A race of warriors like the Rājputs naturally favours the worship of Siva who, as the successor of Rudra, the Vedic storm-god, was originally a terror-inspiring deity, a side of his character only imperfectly veiled by his euphemistic title of Siva, ‘the blessed or auspicious One.’ In his phallic manifestation his chief shrine is at Eklingji, ‘the single or notable phallus,’ about fourteen miles north of Udaipur city. The Rānas hold the office of priest-kings, Dīwāns or prime-ministers of the god. Their association with this deity has been explained by an inscription recently found in the temple of Nātha, ‘the Lord,’ now used as a storeroom of the Eklingji temple.[[15]] The inscription, dated A.D. 971, is in form of a dedication to Lakulīsa, a form of Siva represented as bearing a club, and refers to the Saiva sect known as Lakulīsa-Pāsapatas. It records the name of a king named Srī-Bappaka, ‘the moon among the princes of the Guhila dynasty,’ who reigned at a place called Nāgahvada, identified with Nāgda, an ancient town several times mentioned in The Annals, the ruins of which exist at the foot of the hill on which the temple of Eklingji stands. Srī-Bappaka is certainly Bāpa or Bappa, the traditional founder of the Mewār dynasty, which had at that time its capital at Nāgda. From this inscription it is clear that the Eklingji temple was in existence before A.D. 971, and, as Mr. Bhandarkar remarks, “it shows that the old tradition about Nāgendra and Bappa Rāwal’s infancy given by Tod had some historical foundation, and it is intelligible how the Rānas of Udaipur could have come to have such an intimate connexion with the temple as that of high priests, in which capacity they still officiate.” This office vested in them is a good example of one of those dynasties of priest-kings of which Sir James Frazer has given an elaborate account.[[16]]
The milder side of the Rājput character is represented in the cult of Krishna at Nāthdwāra. The Mahant or Abbot of the temple, situated at the old village of Siārh, twenty-two miles from the city of Udaipur, enjoys semi-royal state. In anticipation of the raid by Aurangzeb on Mathura, A.D. 1669-70, the ancient image of Kesavadeva, a form of Krishna, ‘He of the flowing locks,’ was removed out of reach of danger by Rāna Rāj Singh of Mewār. When the cart bearing the image arrived at Siārh, the god, by stopping the cart, is said to have expressed his intention of remaining there. This was the origin of the famous temple, still visited by crowds of pilgrims, and one of the leading seats of the Vallabhāchārya sect, ‘the Epicureans of the East,’ whose practices, as disclosed in the famous Mahārāja libel case, tried at Bombay in 1861, gave rise to grievous scandal.[[17]] The ill-feeling against this sect, aroused by these revelations, was so intense that the Mahārāja of Jaipur ordered that the two famous images of Krishna worshipped in his State, which originally came from Gokul, near Mathura, should be removed from his territories into those of the Bharatpur State.