History of Rajasthan
Rajasthan, a travellers’s paradise is known for its soulful history and culture, Tourists from all over the world aspire to visit this colourful land . There are a lot of interesting itineraries that could be drawn for guests, some of the most popular packages are Jaisalmer tour packages , Jodhpur Udaipur Tour Package ,Udaipur Mount Abu Tour Package . Also popular is Rajasthan with Agra Tour.
Below are some facts which relate to History of Rajasthan over a period of time:
Geographically, Rajasthan comprises two distinct regions divided by the Aravalli range running southwest to northeast, its last low ridge spilling into Delhi. Marwar, Jaisalmer and Bikaner are situated in the western and northern parts which are marked by the aridity of shifting sandhills, the major portion of the Thar desert. The other side of the divide features dense forests and fertile irrigated valleys which support the historic cities of Udaipur and Jaipur.
Even western and northern Rajasthan were not always desert. Evidence suggests that elephants once made this part of the land their habitat; indicating it must once have abounded in the dense forest where elephants feel most at home. It is in a relatively recent geological timescale, over the past three to four millennia, that ecological changes have replaced forests with sand dunes and the elephant with the camel.
In the historical timeframe, settled existence may have come to Rajasthan before the rest of India. Harappan culture (2500-1700 BC) is usually considered the first evidence of urban settlement in Indian history, but Rajasthan may take precedence, for some of its pre-Harappan locales, such as Kalibangan, bear evidence of plowed agriculture and therefore of sedentary, organised society. There are, too, several sites of the Harappan period in Rajasthan pointing to the integration of the region with the urban settlements of the Indus valley to the north and east.
The history of early Rajasthan is frequently the history of tribal republics or at best, oligarchical socio-political systems. Often at war with one another and with neighbouring kingdoms, tribal organisations were to give way to the process of internal stratification as well as the impact of external aggression during the centuries immediately preceding and succeeding the birth of Christ. Nor could the region remain immune to the influence of the rise and fall of vast empires in north India.
Thus, even if Rajasthan was not integrated with the Gupta Empire of the 4th and 5th century AD, it still bore a subordinate status to the empire.
Warrior clans: The most spectacular development in Rajasthan’s history took place between the 6th and 7th centuries, when some new warrior clans were formed, The Rajputs, as they came to he called, were to dominate the history of the region as well as that many other part; of the country for centuries to Come. Their origin, whether indigenous or foreign, has long aroused heated controversy among historians. National pride no doubt played a part in influencing those who insisted that they were wholly Indian. However, the general consensus these days is that the Rajput clans owe their origin to both indigenous and foreign sources. Among the former were some groups — possibly the ancestors of the present-day Bhils — then having low social status but possessed of the skills and determination of warriors. In the given social set-up the two were mutually incompatible: no one too low in the social hierarchy could be allowed to take up the profession of a higher caste, especially the honourable profession of arms. This conflict was resolved through a mythical purification by fire ritual which enabled the warriors to abandon their old low status and assume one that corresponded to their profession. To reinforce their new-found glory even further, they were assigned mythical descent from the sun and the moon.
Also purified were descendants of foreign invaders, such as the Huns, who had become indigenised. They too were given the caste status of a warrior. Thus were the Rajput clans formed, originating in diverse sources but evolving into relatively homogeneous social, if not political, groups. In calling themselves Rajputs (corruption of rajputras, sons of princes), they segregated themselves from the rest of society by their social status, profession and code of honour.
The politics that the Rajputs established comprised two levels. At the lower level were the subject people, paying revenue to the rulers and enjoying their protection. At the higher level, political power in all its ramifications was shared by a kind of large kin group. Under this system, the Rajputs ot a particular clan were entitled to conventional, if unequal, shares within the territory of that group. The term they used for this collective sharing of power was “brotherhood”. However, the clan did not forever remian a homogeneous unit; often there were conflicts within the “brotherhood” leading to splits which in turn established new “brotherhoods” seeking either to wrest territories from their erstwhile allies or conquering new lands. The Rajputs, never exceeding 7 or 8 percent of Rajasthan’s population, remained the rul-ing class par excellence for centuries.
As the Rajput clans spread, they divided up a great deal of Rajasthan and the neighbouring region among themselves. By about the 12th century, some of the leading houses of Rajput rulers had fairly long traditions of chivalry behind them. The house of the Chauhans, ruling from Ajmer, was the foremost among them, though several others, such as at Ranthambore and Chittaurgarh, were also significant. Needless to say, in situations of constant warfare and intrigue, the relative importance of these houses changed constantly over the centuries.
Muslim invaders: Prithviraj Chauhan of Ajmer was the first great Rajput ruler to come into conflict with Muslim invaders from Central Asia towards the end of the 12th century. In the first battle between them the Rajput chief inflicted a humiliating defeat on his adversary, Muhammad Ghori, described by an eminent Indian historian as “a hero of three stupendous defeats” possessed one cardinal quality: he never ‘allowed himself to be crushed by a reverse on the field of battle. Thus, as the Chauhan warrior imagined that the last had, been seen of Ghori on Indian soil, he reappeared to claim the final victory.
Prithviraj Chauhan’s defeat in 1191 is the subject of a local epic composed two centuries later. The poet wove a beautiful story around the grand event, a story that has all the elements of medieval drama — chivalry, treachery, war, sex and, of course, nemesis. In this epic, Prithviraj is left alone in the field of battle, his fellow Rajputs keeping aloof. History, however, records that several of the Rajput houses in the Chauhan neighbourhood did come to his aid, though one Rajput ruler, Jai Chand, whose daughter Prithviraj was supposed to have kidnapped (much to her delight) continued to watch from the sidelines. He too was to lose to Ghori a little later. In Rajasthani folklore, Jai Chand has become the archetype of a traitor, much as Judas has in Christianity.
Prithviraj Chaiihan defeat gave invading peoples from central Asia a foothold in India that was to expand into a vast empire which lasted wall over 500 year. Ghori had ruled over his Indian territories from Ghazni in Afghanistan, capital of his impressive empire that included territories in almost all directions. In 1206, Gliori died and his viceroy in India, one of his thousand slaves, whom he fondly used to refer to as his thousand sons, became an independent ruler. The Delhi Sultanate was thus estahlished, the empire that ruled from Delhi and lasted 320 years. It gave way in 1526 to another invader from Central Asia —Babur, founder of the Mughal Empire.
Man Singh-Rajput Prince, Mughal noble: Among the most illustrious sons of the house of Amber was Man Singh, whose father’s sister was the first Rajput princess to become Akbar’s queen. Man Singh was to become the most trusted of Akbar’s nobles, fighting battles on his behalf in almost every corner of the fast expanding empire. Mainly thanks to his loyalty to the empire and his capable generalship, the Amber house acquired a lustre that still lends the family a halo in the region. The descendants of the ruling family at Jaipur trace their lineage to him, though the city of Jaipur was founded by another eminent son of the family, Raja Jai Singh, in the first half of the 18th century.
Encouraged by the early success of a new policy towards the Rajputs, Akbar extended it to several other Rajput houses, entering into matrimonial alliances with them and elevating them to high positions. The Rajputs, who had until then been a provincial ruling class, became integrated with a larger imperial ruling class; in return, they gave the empire their support, in place of earlier hostility. Within this broad framework of alliance, Akbar was willing to accommodate predilections of individual Rajput houses. Thus when the ruler of Ranthambore made it a condition that no princess of the family would be demanded in marriage by the emperor, the latter found the condition perfectly reasonable. However, defiance of imperial authority by a Rajput house was something he was unwilling to brook and he was prepared to go to any lengths to enforce obedience.
Three who ruled Chittaurgarh: The subsequent history of Chittaurgarh, although in many ways far more romantic than the story of Padmini and Allauddin, is nonetheless more firmly grounded in historical fact. The 15th and 16th centuries saw Mewar scale high peaks of glory in war under the generalship and determination of three eminent rulers: Rana Kumbha, Rana Sanga and Rana Pratap Singh.
Kumbha, who ruled between 1419 and 1468 was a capable and ambitious warrior who in 1440 defeated the combined forces of the powerful rulers of Gujarat and Malwa (now in Madhya Pradesh). The Victory Tower at Chittaurgarh was built by him in celebration of his feat. At a slightly later stage, Kumbha and his erstwhile adversary, Mahmud Khalji, ruler of Malwa, joined hands against the imperial forces and crushed them in battle. But the imperial forces by this time had retained nothing f o their former grandeur or strength and therefore defeating them was not a real feat.
Much more well known throughout north India, and someone whose achievements have been much longer lasting, is one of Rana Kumbha’s wives, Mira Bai, herself a Rajput princess of some stature. Mira Bai is one of the most eminent of medieval Indian poets who devoted herself to the love and worship of Krishna, one of the two chief deities of the Hindus. In singing of her love for Krishna, which increasingly filled her entire being, she caused considerable scandal in contemporary society where upper class women were required to lead a completely secluded life under the protection of their husbands and where the value placed on female chastity was so high that it was unthinkable for a woman to express desire for the company of a man other than her husband, even if this other man were a god.
Rana Kumbha had defeated several of his adversaries, strengthened his kingdom militarily by building as many as 32 new forts to bring the total in the kingdom to 84, and erected some grand temples in his long reign, which was terminated in 1468 with his assassination by none other than his own son, known to history by the epithet “the assassin”. Over the next couple of generations, Chittaurgarh’s royal chronicle is marked by filial discord.
In terms of material prosperity as well as political stability, Mawar reached its zenith in the first quarter of the 16th century during the reign of Rana Sanga, who ruled from 1508 to 1527. Sanga was frequently at war with his near and distant neighbours, including the Delhi Sultanate. Among the prizes of war he was prone to displaying, with some well-earned pride, were the loss of one eye, an arm and 80 wounds all over his person. However, for all his ceaseless battles, within the boundaries of his kingdom, Sanga proved an able administrator who felt concerned at the need to provide security and prosperity to his subjects.
In 1526 Babur had fought the first major battle with the Sultan of Delhi, Ibrahim Lodi, and defeated him. Thus Mughal rule in India began. However, 1527 was to be the truly decisive year in Babur’s Indian enterprise. In that year the Mughal forces came face to face with those of Rana Sanga, who stood at the head of an immense army to which most Rajput princes, tributaries of the Rana, had sent levies. Confronted by such a formidable force, and the awesome reputation of the Rana as a warrior, Babur was utterly unsure of the outcome of the impending battle. However, the vast mass of Rana Sanga’s army ultimately proved a handicap in the face of Babur’s agile and much better equipped soldiers, and his far superior tactics. In a pithy statement, Babur was to sum up his observation of the Rajput war psychology. “The Rajputs,” he remarked, “know how to die in a battle but not how to win it.”
In the long chain of outstanding warriors whose exploits fill the chronicles of Mewar state, there were occasional weak links too. Among them was Udai Singh, after whom the city of Udaipur is named. But of course, the same Udai Singh was to father Rana Pratap who, even in his political failure to defend his territory against the imperial onslaught, has filled every little vacant space in the land of Mewar with memories of almost superhuman achievements of the unbending spirit of defiance.
In 1567, when Akbar laid seige to Chittaurgarh, Udai Singh was its ruler. Defences began to break one after another. It was this desperation that created two of the immortal heroes in Mewar’s history, both still in their teens. Their names: Jaimal and Phatta. Phatta’s father, ruler of a small state in Rajasthan, had taken on himself the charge of defending one side of the fort and had fallen in the effort. Phatta’s mother, witnessing her husband’s death, commanded her son to assume charge and, lest his young heart demur, she armed herself and her son’s young bride and plunged into the battle.
Phatta followed the two women. On seeing Akbar’s cannon balls knocking holes in the fort wall, Phatta placed himself in one of them in a vain attempt to prevent the wall from crumbling. It did not take Akbar’ s guns long to blow him to smithereens. Jaimal too died a reckless death at Akbar’s own hands. The two names became hallowed in folk memory in Rajasthan; Akbar too acknowledged the futile bravery of his foes by erecting statues of them at the gates of the imperial fort at Agra.
Akbar had conquered Chittaurgarh; but he had not defeated Rana Pratap. Pratap succeeded to the titles of his house in 1572.
The thought of recovering Chittaurgarh became obsessive, though he lacked the material resources to do so. He was able to inspire fierce loyalty among his followers, even when they were not Rajputs. The Bhil peoples of Rajasthan, some of the original inhabitants of the region, whose chief had been treacherously murdered by the founder of the Mewar state, nonetheless stuck to Pratap through all his travails. Bhamashah, a great merchant of the region, placed all his enormous wealth at Pratap’s disposal in his fight against the Mughals. And of course Rajput leaders, like the sons of Jaimal and Phatta, fought by his side in his quarter-century-long struggle which brought him, his family and his partisans untold privation. The severity of the situation also led some Rajput princes to desert him. Among the several encounters Pratap had with the Mughal army, the most celebrated one at Haldighati (the Yellow Valley) in 1576, had another great Rajput warrior, Man Singh, at the head of the Mughal force. Pratap lost this battle, as he did several others.
The Mughals kept pursuing Pratap through the varied landscape of Rajasthan; and Pratap kept eluding or fighting them. He had taken a vow never to sleep on a proper bed, nor live in a mansion, nor eat off metal utensils until Chittaurgarh had been recovered. The thought of doing this through a political compromise with Akbar repelled him. He did not succeed in his life’s mission, but his last wish, expressed as he lay dying in 1597, was that no mansion ever be built nor any creature comfort he provided to his successors until they had Chittaurgarh hack in their hands.
Treachery: If Rana Pratap is an extreme example of the Rajputs’ fierce dedication to honour, there were others who were far more down-to-earth in their pursuit of personal ambition and did not allow any scruple to interfere with it. Thus, early in the 14th century Hammira, ruler of Ranthambore, was deserted by the chief commander of his army, who joined forces with his enemy, Allauddin Khalji, at a time when Khalji had laid siege to his fort. Some of the other Rajput generals also defected to the opposite side at that critical juncture. On the other hand, some Muslim soldiers, fighting on Hammira’s side, stuck with him to the end. One of them, wounded in the battle and captured alive, was asked by Khalji what he would do if his wounds were healed by the sultan’s doctors. His reply was unhesitating: he would try to slay Khalji and place the dead Rajput’s son on the throne. The sultan had him trampled to death under an elephant’s feet, but gave him an honourable burial. Hammira’s betrayers were also trampled to death on the sultan’s orders, since he never rewarded treachery which he had himself engineered.
Even Rana Pratap failed to command the unreserved loyalty of all his followers: among those who could not stand the enormous strain of his unrelenting struggle against the Mughals was his own brother who went over to Akbar; in return he was given the title of rana and the capital of Mewar.
Barring Rana Pratap, Akbar had been able to come to terms with almost all Rajput rulers who were enlisted as high officials of the empire and many of whom gave their daughters in marriage to the emperor and his princes. Henceforth, alliance with the Rajputs was to become one of the cornerstones of imperial polity. Rajputs became, in the words of a Mughal historian, “at once the props and the ornaments of the (Mughal) throne.”
Decline: Henceforth, while an individual Mughal emperor might be more inclined towards one Rajput house rather than another, and might bestow some extra favours on it, the imperial polity always functioned with the support of the Rajputs as a whole. There was an eruption of tension between the empire and one eminent Rajput house in the last quarter of the 17th century. The last of the “great Mughals”, Aurangzeb, plagued by one crisis after another, had sought respite from his troubles by accommodating the newly emerging Maratha troublemakers, led by their great leader, Shivaji, at the expense of the Rajputs. This was openly resented by the Jodhpur ruler, but the rest of the Rajputs continued to side with the Mughal empire.
So strong had the interdependence be-tween the Mughal empire and the Rajputs become that Rajput strength, which had stubbornly defied the Delhi Sultans for 3Y2 long centuries, declined with the loss of authority of the empire in the 18th century. As in the case of the empire’s other former as well as existing territories, the subjects and lands of the Rajputs were plundered at will by the rising new power, the Marathas. Several Rajput rulers secured their territories against such plunder by paying large sums in annual ransom to them.
Gone also were the codes of chivalry which had lent so much to the identity of everyday life of Rajput ruling families. Once the overarching Mughal suzerainty’ was withdrawn, previously buried clan and family tensions rose to the surface within each kingdom and, of course, between them. These were routine, petty tensions, devoid of the grandeur that had marked the relationship between the Rajput states and the great empires of the Sultans of Delhi and the Mughals. Bit by bit, some Rajput states – among them Mewar with Its glorious history of defiance of imperial might for over three centuries— were reduced to a situation where they became the protectorates first of the Marathas and later of British power in India. Mewar handed over 6 million rupees to the Marathas for protection and Marwar a similar amount.
Enter the British: The British, along with other European traders, had come to India in the early 17th century, attracted by the fame of Indian cotton and silk textiles and indigo. Their trading interests had expanded over the centuries; with that had grown their attempts to get a foothold in the faction-ridden land. They had brought with them gold and silver to pay for the goods purchased here; but their own value in the local factional policies was enhanced as they brought into the field the most advanced firearms of the time and superior military organisation. They were in great demand in the various states that had emerged following the disintegration of the Mughal empire.
In the ensuing free-for-all, the British and the French were the chief competitors for establishing their hold over the whole of India; in the end, the British emerged the victors, though the French and the Portuguese continued to hold on to bits of Indian territory. The British started on their path of conquest from around the mid-18th century in Bengal; by the end of the century, their presence could also be felt far away in the west and the south.
Out in the west, the British initially let the Marathas plunder the R assuming a posture of strict neutrality in the mutual relations of Indian states. This, of necessity, made the Rajputs turn to them for protection. The British did not desire the annihilation of the Rajput states at Maratha’ s hands, for they were well aware that, along with them, the Marathas were to be the chief contenders for imperial status in India and it would therefore be expedient to preserve a force essentially hostile to the Marathas. This was achieved through a series of treaties between the British Indian Government and various Rajput states. Through them, each side was obliged to treat the friends and enemies of the other as its own friends and enemies, and to render assistance to each other in the event of a threat to either side’s security.
Unequal treaties: The conclusion of a treaty did not fully assure assistance in meeting external threats, for often a treaty was violated on one flimsy pretext or another by either side if compliance did not suit it. But, on the whole, the treaties were far more advantageous to the British than to the Indian states. Following these alliances, the British authority in the states came to be represented by Residents — one in each major state. The Resident would emerge as the real centre of power in the state, freely interfering with the internal administration and justifying it with the claim that a properly administered people would secure the prince against any internal disturbance or external threat. “The exclusive aim of our interference,” wrote one Such Resident “was the welfare of the Rajput princes and the tranquility of their country”.
The disingenuous nature of this claim was acknowledged even by Lord Hastings, Gover-nor-General of India, in 1814: “In our treaties with them [the princes] we recognise them as independent sovereigns. Then we send a Resident to their courts…. [who] assumes the functions of a director; interferes in all their private concerns; countenances refractory subjects against them; and makes the most ostentatious exhibition of his authority…”
By the second decade of the 19th century, the British had buried any of the Maratha pretensions to imperial status forever, in turn firmly establishing their own claim to it. Thus, although the chief trouble-makers, as far as the Rajput states were concerned, had by and large been silenced, the states were no longer in a position to snap their ties with the mighty new power. Indeed, at an assembly of the princes at Ajmer in 1832, they complained against each other to the British Governor-General and each pleaded for his personal intervention to sort out their petty disputes. They even sought his protection against dacoits (robbers) operating in their own territories.
Even as the British Residents interfered the states, the with the internal affairs of Imperial Government wisely refrained from depriving ay Rajput ruler or his successor of his throne or his title. The wisdom of this policy was demonstrated in 1857 when almost all the Rajput princes came rushing to the aid of the beleaguered British, and greeted the crushing of the great rebellion of that historic year in India with unconcealed glee.
Not all of Rajasthan was, however, on the side of the British. As in the core of the rebellious territory, intermediate levels of landed aristocracy combined with the civilian population to participate in the uprising in Rajasthan and, for a brief while, met with impressive successes. Often, the common soldiers sent to suppress the rebels expressed their solidarity with them by downing their guns, though their active participation in the uprising remained rather marginal.
Immediately following the rebellion of 1857, the princes were engulfed in a sort of euphoria, for Queen Victoria as she declared herself Empress of India, had assured the princes that the earlier reckless policy of depriving them of their thrones was being given up for good. The declaration was reassuring even in Rajasthan where the former policy had hardly ever been implemented. However, various British institutions of administration, justice, education, and soon, gradually came to be introduced in Rajasthan as in the rest of the country. Initially some of these met with resistance, but this was followed by slow acceptance.
Towards the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, a kind of ferment was agitating the minds of the educated Indian elite, and the ferment was percolating down to the mass of the people. Its main thrust was one of hostility to British rule, initially moderate but growing intense with the passage of time. The Governors-General realised that the princes might prove their chief bastion of support in the face of growing popular agitation. In 1903 Lord Curzon organised the Delhi Durbar, an assembly of princes at Delhi held to gauge the extent of support for the British Government; the response should have pleased him. Most princes demonstrated an almost excessive eagerness to attend and reiterate their loyalty to their imperial masters.
The Princes and the Nationalist Movement: In 1905 Curzon partitioned Bengal into two provinces, ostensibly for reasons of administrative convenience, but actually to separate the Muslim-dominated east Bengal from Hindu-dominated west Bengal in the hope of creating dissensions between them. This single act electrified the mass of the people in Bengal and galvanised them into a most uncompromising hostility to the Government. The effect of the agitation naturally spilled over into all of South Asia. In Rajasthan, the princes, loyal to Britain, took several steps to prevent the spread of the agitation (termed “sedition” by them) to Rajasthan: severe restrictions were placed on the press in the reporting of agitation. All the restrictions notwithstanding, Rajasthan did not remain untouched by some of the revolutionary activity that had engulfed much of India at this time.
The outbreak of World War I witnessed the princes in Rajasthan similarly eager to demonstrate their loyalty to Britain. The character of s freedom movement began to chance considerably after the peace treaty of 1919. While British imperialism remained the chief target of hostility, especially in the territories directly under British administration, attention also began to be directed towards the problems of the subjects of the princely states. Consequently, agitations were launched to secure redress of their grievances. Clearly the agitations in the princely states were double-edgd: they were directed both against the Indian princes and their British masters.
This necessarily threw the two even into each other’s arms. A Chamber of Princes was established with the professed objective of achieving closer cooperation between two sides. The Chamber was thus visualized as a bulwark against popular agitation.
The rest of the story of Rajasthan conforms closely to the story of the freedom movement in India as a whole. The combined force of the British Government and the Indian princes could not hold back the widespread and popular demands for independence. The movement used diverse methods to achieve its ends: sometimes depending solely on non-violence under the leadership of Gandhi; at other times taking to revolutionary violence and paying for it with life itself. When Independence finally came to India in 1947, the different strands of the movement began to fragment into political factions, although the Congress Party remained all-powerful.
Independent India: 15 August 1947 brought to India both Independence and Partition of the country into India and Pakistan. The princes had been given the option of either merging with India or Pakistan or retaining their autonomy. Since the partition had taken place on the basis of the Hindu-Muslim divide, it would have been unthinkable for the Hindu princes of Rajasthan to throw in their lot with Pakistan. Long history and common religious identity the rest of India made it inevitable that they should merge with India. The new Government of independent India—largely through the efforts of the new Home Minister, Sardar Patel —made it attractive to the princes to opt for India by providing them with a generous Privy Purse and several other privileges; on the other hand, it was made clear to them that the Indian Government did not quite like the idea of several independent states scattered all over its conventionally bounded territory. Rajasthani princes were quick to grasp the message and one by one came over to merge with India. They enjoyed the Privy Purse and other privileges until 1970 when Indira Gandhi abolished them through an Act of Parliament.
Although Rajasthan has, with the rest of India, changed a great deal over the past four decades, history and tradition continue to play an important part in Rajasthani identity. Almost every Rajasthani citizen will enthusiastically recite the history, ‘often generously mixed with a great deal of charming fantasy, of almost every fort, palace or former ruling family from its beginning to the present day, to any willing listener.
Art and commerce: In two other spheres of human activity, the cultural and the economic, Rajasthan has made impressive contributions. During the 18th and early 19th centuries, a Rajasthani school of painting developed from the Mughal style and earned considerable recognition. The chief centre of the Rajasthan school was at Bundi.
In the economy, the term “Marwari” (from Marwar, around Jodhpur) has come to signify a trader par excellence. The Marwaris had spread themselves out from west to east as carriers of trade from the 17th century onwards and by the 18th century had established themselves well enough to be the chief bankers and money-lenders to provincial governments such as the one in Bengal. The tradition continues to this day, though their business now includes industry.
While the Marwaris have taken to modern commercial activity with great zeal, their social and family life remains steeped in tradition. The sense of family solidarity remains extremely strong with them and their children’s marriages are mostly arranged by the parents. It is still rare to come across a non-vegetarian Marwari. The Marwaris represent an interesting case of how traditional social practices and structures have been adapted to life in post-Independence India.
If the above excites you and you would like to explore Rajasthan Tour Packages , Rajasthan Heritage Tour contacts Swan Tours – a leading travel agency in India. Best of Rajasthan tour packages can be customized according to the needs of the traveller.
Swan Tours - Blogs 