The Early History of India, from 600 B.C. to the Muhammadan Conquest, including the Invasion of Alexander the Great c31.s9.4

c31.s9.4

The apparently sudden introduction of Rājpūt states on the stage during the eighth and ninth centuries is in part an illusion. Hardly anything is known about the caste or tribal position of the ancient ruling families. Nobody can tell exactly the rank of Hindu society to which the family of Asoka or Samudragupta belonged, and nothing is on record to indicate how far the kings whose names appear prominently on the scene were merely successful personal adventurers or how far they were the heads of dominant clans. In later times all Rājpūts have considered themselves to be Kshatriyas—members of the second of the four groups of castes according to the familiar Brahman theory.¹ So far back as the time when the *Dialogues of the Buddha* were composed the Kshatriyas were recognized as an important element in society, and in their own estimation stood higher than the Brahmans.¹ The fact probably is that from very remote days ruling clans of Kshatriyas, essentially similar to the Rājpūts of later days, existed and were continually forming new states, just in the same way as in the mediaeval period. But their records have perished, and only a few exceptionally conspicuous dynasties are at all remembered, and so stand out on the page of history in a manner that does not fully represent the truth. The term Kshatriya was, I believe, always one of very vague meaning, simply denoting the Hindu ruling classes which did not claim Brahman descent. Similarly all persons performing priestly functions could be regarded by Hindus only as Brahmans. Occasionally a Rāja might be a Brahman by caste, but the Brahman's natural place at court was that of minister rather than that of king.² Chandragupta Maurya presumably was considered to be a Kshatriya—his minister Chānakya or Kautilya certainly was a Brahman.