Reviews
By Nalinaksha Dutt, U. N. Ghoshal, D. Bhattacharya, Panchanan Mitra, Subimal Chandra Datta
Summary
The History of Rajputana (in Hindi), Part I, by Rai Bahadur Pandit Gaurishankar Hirachand Ojha, is a comprehensive 400-page work addressing the history of the Rajput community. The book is divided into two sections. The first section covers preliminary matters, including geographical notes on Rajputana’s name, rivers, climate, mines, forts, population, religion, castes, and arts. It also explores the contested origins of the Rajputs, with the author arguing their descent from Vedic Kshatriyas, despite scholarly debates attributing some Rajput clans to foreign tribes like the Sakas, Kushans, and Huns. The review critiques Ojha’s reliance on the late Manu Samhiti and the Vispupuranam, noting their questionable historical reliability. The third chapter details ancient ruling families of Northern India, while the fourth examines relations between Rajputana and external powers like the Mughals, Marathas, and British. The second section focuses on the Udaipur State, discussing its geography, the origin of the Guhilotes, and controversies surrounding their lineage. The review highlights Ojha’s contentious claim that Guhilotes descended from the Solar dynasty, challenging Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar’s view that they were originally Brahmins. It critiques the author’s overreliance on ambiguous inscriptions and coins, such as the Eklingji Stone Inscription, which lacks clear context. The book’s extensive scope and detailed analysis are acknowledged, but its arguments are deemed weak, particularly regarding the Rajputs’ origins and the Guhilotes’ lineage, which contradict established evidence from inscriptions like the Atpur and Chitorgadh records. Overall, the work is seen
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
This comprehensive review highlights the long-awaited contribution of Ojha’s work to Rajputana history, filling a critical gap left by Tod’s century-old annals. While praising the author’s thoroughness in covering geographical, cultural, and historical aspects, it critically examines his contentious claim linking Rajputs to Vedic Kshatriyas, arguing that his reconciliation of foreign tribal influences with indigenous origins remains unconvincing. The review acknowledges the volume’s extensive scope—from geographical details to ancient dynasties—but questions the inclusion of tangential material on Northern India’s ruling families. Ultimately, the conclusion underscores the work’s significance as a foundational yet debated scholarly endeavor, emphasizing its role in stimulating further research on Rajput origins and historical narratives.