Ever wondered why Marathas, Sikhs, Muslims, Jats, Ahirs, Gujjars, Ahoms, Socialists, Left, Right, some Southerners, or even some Brahmins can't stop attacking Rajputs? Wondered what purpose does it solve for them? And why this phenomenon appeared in the late colonial period only?

The late colonial period ushered in the politics of quantity, of democracy, of societal acceptance. Any such societal acceptance for a people group couldn't have come without a civilisational legitimacy of political power, of the role and status of a Kshatriya.

And in the Indian context, that was held solely and undisputedly by the Rajputs. Others have had claims but not without disputes. This is the reason why Mughals, Sikhs (Ranjit Singh), Marathas (Scindias), Wodeyars sought ritual upgradation by marriages into Rajput clans.

Prior to this, they had already created a Rajput ancestry in their local genealogical narratives. With the advent of Sanskritisation, reformist true Brahmins created false Brahmins, and those false Brahmins started according ritual status without authority to these groups.

Let's not forget that this reformism was also propelled by quantitative politics only and not anything that was formerly Indian. The Brits, indeed promoted it, one example would be the mess system in British armies where varna segregation was causing occupancy issues.

This also transpired in clerical and official working spaces. Hence the relatively bookish classes of Brahmins and Kayasthas who readily enrolled in office works, adopted this homogenisation the first. The indoctrination recieved for British workspaces seeped into their religion.

And even though the Brits were not into proselytism like their other European neighbors, they did use Abrahamic morality to further their goals of achieving their own practicality with Indians. The 4 varnas + 1 were working together with some reluctance in a show of numbers.

And now it were the numbers only that mattered. In come Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, Deoband, Tableeghi Jamat, all for the same purpose, to increase their numbers by achieving homogenisation of the dining house, but now in every field, for quantitative politics.

The little resistance that came primarily came from the Rajputs and the trueborn Brahmins. Rest each and every group had some or the other kind of emancipation movement going on by the 1st World War, and some rioting, after all, riots are a numbers game.

In come Comgress' British Labor Party sponsored Fabian Socialism and the so called Indian conservatives' Hindutva/Hinduwad. Both identifying class segregation as a problem, just like their British employers, and working towards further homogenisation.

The Great War (WW1) demanded more numbers, and the Brits upped the ante on a quantitatively oriented reformation. The appeals to Warriorhood/Kshatriyahood were now subject, not to religious institutions but British Paperwork and the subalterns pushed further on their claims.

Those who were never Kshatriyas were now Kshatriyas inexchange for fighting in the war. A taste of ritual and traditional legitimacy. But of course till the Rajputs are there, this can't happen. In come the polemical narratives, without looking into their own.

The common voting populace doesn't read, it believes in what it hears, even if it is half-truth or utter falsehood. Campaign against the Kshatriyas begin - subalterns bask in self-aggrandizing narratives, Brahmins don't see priesthood appealing, right and left engage in populism.

The Urdu belt Muslims now hijack the Mughal legacy when it were the very machinations and treachery of their predecessors that led to the fall of the Mughals. Aurangzeb, their only patron in Mughal History is made into the hero of the Islamists.

Savarkar, his antecedents and his contemporaries from the Deccan, being the intellectual paupers they were create reactionary narratives and instead turn Mughals into civilisational enemies, forgetting it was Bahadur Shah Zafar on whose name their Nana Saheb staked the rebellion.

Now mind you, I am not an apologist for the Mughals but the Pune lobby only gained from its association with the Mughals. Whereas some or the other clan of Rajputs had been in conflict with them throught their existence, Marathas too were hostile for 2 generations, till Sambhaji.

Coming back to the 20th century, the subaltern classes, the political wings, and some traditional classes with non-traditional adventurism came up with the brilliant idea that to acquire political legitimacy and in turn political power, it was necessary to usurp the status quo.

Let's not forget communism, socialism, revolutions and falling monarchies were the norm internationally. But in India it was a bit different, they didn't want to only overthrow the Rajputs, they wanted to replace them, hence diminishing their international advantage to an extent.

The Rajput Kingdoms were a recurring theme of debate in the congress sessions prior to 1947. The so called democratisation of their kingdoms, through force even, was proposed on occasions. This was the audacity and malevolence of Congress that didn't have any power whatsoever.

Somehow despite British Victory, in World War 2, the opposition Labor Party wins the 1945 elections, surprisingly and suspiciously. The same Labor Party that was opposed to the British crown, and had its ideological core in the Fabian Society.

This is the same Fabian Society, whose member Nehru was in England, and which had come to occupy much of academic spaces in Britain. Nehru was a proud Fabian Socialist, and now we know what he, along with others including Mr. Bluman was doing studying there.

Of course the coat of arms of the Fabian Society was of a 'Wolf in Sheep Clothing'. They all were .

Progressivism, the word coloquially believed for what is desirable comes from the vocabulary of the Fabians. Progression here inreality has nothing to do woth the desirable but a progressive change to a different state, desirable only and only to the Fabians.

Now that we have a slight glimpse into the ideology, let's go further after 1947. A 'Democratic Republic' is born or perhaps synthetically made. The curious thing about Democracies and Republics and Democratic-Republics is their over reliance on propaganda.

Don't believe me? French Revolution? Russian Revolution? The Progressive erasure of British Monarch's Powers? If not for propaganda, these things won't happen. And they didn't happen in India either.

The people of the now displaced film industry of Lahore, were being settled with the aid of Nehru. Quid Pro Quo ensues, and the target is the Kshatriya Rajput, the adhering Brahmin, or the traditional Vaishya. Meanwhile female 'libertine emancipation' is brough in.

Both Right and Left wings of Indian democratic politics and their every variant that has ever existed, follows the ideological blueprint of the Nehruvian Congress' Fabian Socialism. Don't let anyone fool you into believing in anything else. They all operate to the same effect.

The right and left both have made allies with these aspirant groups. Once they achieve socialist democratic distribution of the body of Rajput legacy, they will go for them. Absolute socialist homogenisation requires that not just heirarchies but entire identities are dissolved.