[11] : The Manifest symptoms of perverting the right order of identities

Among the majority of Rajputs, Rana Pratap Singh represents the archetype hero while Raja Man Singh represents the archetype anti-hero. What does it show ? 

It shows that Rajputs put their Hindu identity in the foreground and the Rajput identity in the background. And such being the case the one who fought against the Muslim ( antithesis of a Hindu) Akbar naturally becomes a superhero figure and one who allied with Akbar naturally became an enemy. 

This is ofcourse a very lazy, laid back, and inauthentic and irresponsible analysis of the historical events and the character of actors who participated in these events. Our understanding of our basic beingness determines how we make sense of history. Basically, you can make sense of history as a Hindu or as a Rajput. But, the two versions will be always be incompatible to each other. 

If we have to change this intersubjectively superimposed Hindu attitude of Rajputs towards their history or their present circumstances, we can do that only when we motivate the Rajputs to go back to their basic beingness. The awakening of this basic beingness that we have seen in recent times in certain regions is promising and must be encouraged and replicated in other regions.

In my reflection so far upon the nature of the predicament that  Rajput community faces today, I have found that the most basic problem we face is the problem of identity or Beingness. All our problems sprung from this most fundamental problem. Do we have a solution for it ? Have we made enough efforts to resolve it ? No. We are only looking at things which are in the foreground and doing nothing to solve the mother of all problems that lurks in the background. Unless you fix it, I am sorry to say but there is little hope. 

The way to fix it is by creating a discourse around the “Beingness of the Rajput” using the theme of “the dangerous other”. My idea of othering shouldn’t be read as one suggesting a complete alienation of the Rajputs from the others. It has nothing to do with provoking, conflicting, or abusing others. But, it simply underlines the fact that the Rajput identity can only be fully understood in dialectical opposition to the other. Just as the individuality of every person in a collective is meaningful in  dialectical opposition to the rest. Only when we realise our individuality fully do we get to the point where we cannot be taken for granted by others or treated as a means to an end (of the others.)

I have made my position clear on numerous occasions before. Let me say it again. 

I see Kshatriya hood as a potentiality in man which manifests fully only in Rajputs lineages. I don’t see kshatiyas as a social category restricted to Hindus / vedic religion etc. Or any other religion for that matter. Kshatriya hood is biologically determined. ( Biological determinism). The religion your clan is currently following is totally irrelevant to its kshatiyood.

Having said that, religion for me is an act of partaking or participation. Historically speaking, we always participated in the religious climate of the age. And not just that we participated but infact we were the chief architects and patrons. Whether the pre-Rigvedic times, or Vedic times, or buddhists-jaina phase, or the most recent phase of classical Hinduism, we have always played the role of either the chief architect or chief patron, and even both at times. Yet, we can’t say that the Beingness of a Rajput can be conditioned by any of these religious traditions. Our beingness is a-priori. It is before these religions. Period.