Let us quit diplomatic and military history jargon and try to view this situation in lay men's terms .
My 2 cents -
I would regard battle conquests of a people as merely a fourth of a conquering people's objective . The surrender of ones political dominance as another fourth . The loss of religion comprises another fourth . The loss of ones culture ( language , rituals , customs , etc . ) as the last fourth .( The latter 2 being in no particular order )
Now you can apply your standard jargon to this layman's description of what it means to be a defeated people , a conquered people or a vanquished people and decide where do the Rajputs fit in with your narrative .
A few examples may be in order -
The American Indians lost everything from their land to their political autonomy to their religion and their culture ( to a large extent . One still reads about a small no of Indian tribes in isolated areas trying to uphold their culture but they lack the nos )
The Arab conquest of Persia determined that the Persians lost their territory , political autonomy ( they regained it after conversion to Islam - their conquerors religion after a lapse of centuries ) , their religion and only retained their culture ( Persians firmly resisted imposition of Arabic on them . The Arabs compromised and the Persians became bilingual ) .
Compare these random examples to the Rajputs applying all those yardsticks of military strategy and political objectives that you've detailed .
