Bana and Rajwada collections: Dichotomization obscures the realities of caste and class – The Times of India Blog

A recent article focused on Fabindias casteist Bana and Rajwada collection raised some important issues that compel us to confront deeper questions about the history of the subcontinent and historiography itself. The article called upon FabIndia to reconsider using their supposedly problematic and provocative fashion labels of Rajwada and Bana the former meaning Royal and the latter being an honorific term used to address young Rajput males.

The author alleges the terms evoke negative memories for oppressed castes of Rajasthan and should therefore be renounced. He even recalls a specific memory where he was allegedly attacked by children belonging to the Kshatriya community for making casteist remarks. He implicates the entire Rajput community for the supposed actions of a few children children he admits to have supposedly incited with apparently harmless casteist taunts. Leaving this tale aside, the feudal protocols such as removing shoes when passing a Zamindars house also dictated the relationship between the Rajput Zamindar and the Rajput clan-retainers (commoners). However, feudal practices like not being permitted to ride horses is not to be taken lightly. These practices are not justifiable, but they were not limited to Kshatriya domains.

Such practices were also found in regions where monarchs or rulers were from non-Kshatriya communities such as Bharatpur, Patiala, or Rewari, places that were ruled by rulers from OBC communities such as Hindu Jaats, Sikh Jatts, and Ahirs, respectively. Anti-Dalit atrocities and oppressive practices are still found in these regions today, as they are everywhere else in the nation. However, it is still problematic to blame entire communities for the actions of some. Such generalizations form the basis of casteism and most self-styled crusaders miss the mark by indulging in this.

Additionally, conflating caste and class is very problematic. Rajputs are neither economically dominant nor prosperous, hence conflating zamindar Rajputs with common Rajputs (clan retainers) is as dishonest as clubbing a Jat or Ahir Zamindar with a Jat or Ahir commoner. Though most of Indias feudal lords and monarchs were Rajputs, the community in general formed the bulk of North Indias farmers. Royals and nobility from non-Kshatriya communities were also found across India, including in Rajasthan. There were Jat zamindars (Chaudharies and Mirdhas), Charan and Rajpurohit jagirdars and such casteist practices were prevalent in these regions as well as across the country. Rulers from OBC communities indulged in casteism as well.

Returning to the contention over honorific terms, claiming that terms like rajwada are problematic is a rather puzzling argument. This is an extreme example of cancel culture which will only create more social conflicts rather than solve them. If we are to follow this logic, we would also have to cancel Dalit stalwarts such as Santokh Singh Chaudhry for his familys adoption of the name Singh and Chaudhry both of which are related to Rajputs and feudalism. Indeed, terms like Sardar (which is colloquially used for turbaned Sikh men) would also be cancelled as it has its roots in feudal India as Rajput and Afghan nobles and retainers utilized it. Are we to gloss over the fact that many communities have engaged in adopting Rajputs symbols, names and titles as a means of empowerment and upliftment? The most prominent example being that of Sikhs who adopted Singh and Kaur from the Rajputs.

Cancelling words related to Rajwada would also require the author to change his first name to something else less provocative. Contrary to his claims, there is an agressive Rajputisation followed by most North Indian OBC SC ST communities, from Jats to Bhils. The admiration for Kshatriyas and their symbols has also engendered unprecedented levels of historical appropriation (e.g. new Gujjar claims on Chauhan and Pratihar Kshatriya dynasties, Ahir claims on Yadu Rajputs). For millions across the nation, Rajwadas contributions are inspirational, and many have been at the forefront of anti-casteism. Many of their socialist reforms that continue to irk casteists, such as reservations, have found their champions from among the Kshatriyas notably former PMs Chandra Shekhar and VP Singh. In fact, more Kshatriya elites have donated lands or advocated for redistribution of lands to OBCs and Dalits than any other segment (Brahmin, Bania or OBC zamindar elites) in Indian society.

Overall, the article rests upon a well-established bias among academics and media one that glosses over the fact people from all communities in India have, at some point in history, indulged in the same casteist behaviour. Here, the author is trying to specifically blame Rajputs for it. This is a gross misrepresentation of the structural nature of the caste system in which all sections of the society openly and commonly engaged in caste discrimination against Dalits. The anti-Dalit acts by OBCs was not a rare occurrence historically or contemporarily, by any measure. Broad brushstrokes that divide Indias historical society into a binary of oppressed and oppressor misrepresents Indian history and veils the true breadth of the caste system. Expanding the boundaries of what is considered politically incorrect to include terms related to Rajwada and Bana is a rather odd way of countering caste discrimination. This type of hyper-polarization will do little to address this serious issue. If words like Rajwada or Bana offend such self-styled crusaders, then they must also staunchly oppose Rajputisation and the aggressive appropriation of Rajput history undertaken by various OBC groups. On the contrary, some journalists have erroneously but actively supported Goojar claims on Samrat Prithviraj Chauhan and Mihirbhoj Pratihar as well as that of Ahirs appropriation of Yaduvanshis and Koeri appropriation of Kushwaha Rajputs.

These actions of converting medieval Rajput monarchs to OBC castes while cancelling the entire Rajput community of 70 million, across classes, as oppressive zamindars are inherently contradictory. It only serves to isolate a community and incite caste hatred against it. Is this not exactly what people opposed to the tag Jashn-e-Riwaz intended, albeit for a different community?

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

See more here:
Bana and Rajwada collections: Dichotomization obscures the realities of caste and class - The Times of India Blog