History of Orissa from the Earliest Times to the British Period v2.c48: Appendix VI. Rajput Origins in Orissa
History of Orissa from the Earliest Times to the British Period v2.c48
- Language
- English
Appendix VI. Rajput Origins in Orissa
v2.c48.2
Like the chiefs of other provinces of India many of the feudatory chiefs and zamindars of Orissa claim to be Rajputs. Yet their genealogical tables and the accounts which they have supplied to the compilers of Imperial and Provincial Gazetteers in this country very often prove the contrary. In almost all cases the chiefs claimed to be of Rajput descent before the British conquest of the country. Many of the modern chiefs of Orissa are really descended from ancient kings of that country and their ancestry can be traced back, historically, much further than those of most of the princely houses of modern Rajputana. The most prominent example is that of Mayurbhanj. In other cases Rajput origin has been claimed on very meagre and insufficient grounds by chiefs of humbler origins and these claims have gone unchallenged so long. The most prominent examples are the families of Vizianagram and Patna-Sonpur.
v2.c48.3
In the case of Vizianagram, the claim to Rajput origin seems to have been tacitly acknowledged by the Rajputs of Rajputana and by accurate historians of the type of Prof. Jadunath Sarkar. Prof. Sarkar, writing of the foundation of the Chiefship of Vizianagram, in the first volume of his monumental work on Aurangzeb, says : "In 1652 a Rajput officer of Golkonda seized Vizagapatam and extending his conquest formed a petty Rajahship."¹ quoted in a footnote in his page is the *Imperial Gazetteer*, (Vols. X, XII & XXIV). Out of these volumes only Vol. XXIV contains any reference to the Vizianagram family. Prof. Sarkar refers to page 339 in this Volume and on this page we find the following statement : "The family claims descent from Madhavavarma, who led a Rajput colony into the Kistna valley in A. D. 591 and whose descendants held important posts at the court of Golconda. In 1652 one of these, Pusapati Madhavavarma, entered Vizagapatam." The claim to Rajput descent and the tacit acceptance of the statement in the *Gazetteer* made Prof. Sarkar admit that the conqueror of Vizagapatam in 1652 was a Rajput. The Maharaja of Vizianagram is no doubt admitted to be a Rajput at the present day and intermarriages are taking place with the highest Rajput families. But the facts to be taken into consideration in deciding the claim of a descent from a Rajput clan are :—(1) the date when a migration is said to have taken place, and (2) the conditions of the migration, *e.g.*, different versions of the same story and their probability.
v2.c48.4
¹ Vol. 1 p. 215.
v2.c48.5
With these three points of enquiry before us in the case of the Vizianagram family, we find that the first point is decidedly against the theory of Rajput descent. The name Rajput was not in existence in the 6th century, and even if a migration into the Krishna valley is admitted at that time from some unknown place in Northern India, it is not possible to connect such people with genuine Rajputs of the divine Agnikulas of legends. The subsequent Rajput intermarriages of the family are no proof of its descent, as later on all kings became Kshatriyas, genealogies were provided for them as late as the 16th and the 17th centuries (the Koches of Kuch Bihar and the Ahoms of Assam) and in the nineteenth century most princes became Rajputs. Inspite of the inherent defects in the story provided by the agents of the Vizianagram Estate to the compilers of the *Imperial Gazetteer*, it contains certain important pieces of information, and if they are correct and authentic they ought to prove the real descent of the family. The name Madhavavarman is very suggestive. Several chiefs of that name belonging to the Sailodbhava family ruled over the Kongoda-mandala in the seventh century. One of them, the subordinate of Sasānka, king of Gauda, was alive in 618 A. D., a date not very far removed from the traditional date of the migration of the so-called Rajputs into the Krishna valley. Mādhavavarman-Sainyabhīta was not a Rajput, but he was a king and his people ruled over Java and Sumatra when the Rajputs of the bluest blood were still wandering Gujars or unconverted Hunas.
v2.c48.6
The chiefs of Patna and Sonpur claim to be descended from the Chauhans or Chahamanas. The story of their migration is of interest and provides us with an important specimen of the evolution of Rajput pedigrees of Orissan chiefs in British period of Indian history. So far as I know, no Orissan chief has been able to produce any genuine records in support of their claims to Rajput descent. The entire claim of the Patna-Sonpur family is based on legend and tradition which varies from time to time with the whims of the individual, either the chief or his officer. The earliest record of the genealogy of the Patna-Sambalpur-Sonpur family is to be found in the narrative of the English traveller, T. Motte, who was deputed by the East India Company to the "Diamond mines at Sumbhulpur" in 1766.
v2.c48.7
His journal was printed in the *Asiatic Annual Register* for 1799. Motte says :—
v2.c48.8
"Sumbhulpoor was founded by Bulram Dakee of whom they relate the following history. About two centuries are past since a company of Hindus set out from the banks of the Sommer in the province of Azmir, on a pilgrimage to the temple af Jaggernut. On their return the whole party was murdered, except one woman who made her escape to Patna, a place thirty coss south from hence, at that time the capital of this part of the country. She supported herself with begging until her son grew up, who shewed such a happy genius for learning, and such dexterity at his exercises, that the Rajah adopted him. When he succeeded, he built this place, and made it his residence, calling it Sumbhulpoor, from the country of his father. Had his family come from the Sommer, he would have called it Sommerpoor ; whereas, I should think, he came from Sumhhul, a large city in the Rohilla country."¹
v2.c48.9
¹ *Asiatic Annual Register*, 1799, pp. 73-74.
v2.c48.10
Motte found that the chiefs of Sambalpur claimed descent from a man who had come from Sambhar, the ancient Sakambhari, the first capital of the Chahmanas before they migrated to Delhi. He does not say whether the originator of the Patna-Sambalpur-Sonpur family was a Chauhan or a Parihar or a Kachhwaha. We reach the next stage in this maze of genealogy in the *Gazetteer of the Central Provinces of India*, by Charles Grant, Nagpur, 1870 (Second Edition).
v2.c48.11
In this book the ancestor of the Patna-Sambalpur-Sonpur family has lost the characteristics of a pilgrim to Jagannath, he has become the Rajput Raja of Sambar near [Figure: Rock-cut Image of Rishabha, the First Tirthankara Lalātendu Keshari’s Cave—Khandagiri—Puri District]
v2.c48.12
Mainpuri. "The Maharajas of Patna claim direct descent from a race of Rajput Rajas of Garhsambar near Mainpuri and trace it through thirty-one generations. It is alleged that Hitambar Singh, the last of these Rajas, offended the king of Delhi, and was killed; that his family had to abandon their country and fly in every direction; and that one of his wives, who was at that time *enceinte*, found her way down to Patna, which was, it seems, at that time represented by a cluster of eight 'garhs,' and the chief of each 'garh' took it in turn to rule for a day over the whole. The chief of Kolagarh received the Rani kindly, and in due time she gave birth to a boy, who was called Ramai Deva. The chief adopted him, and eventually abdicated in his favour; and when it came to his turn to rule, he took the first opportunity of causing the chiefs of the other seven garhs to be murdered and setting himself up as the ruler over the whole, with the title of Maharaja."¹
v2.c48.13
¹ *Central Provinces Gazetteer, Second Edition. Nagpur, 1870, pp. 393-94.*
v2.c48.14
This statement is certainly based on informations supplied to the compiler of the Gazetteer by officers of the Patna State. It differs materially from the statement of Motte in making the ancestor of the family a Raja instead of a comparatively insignificant private person of Sambhar who came on pilgrimage to Jagannath and in making him come from Garh Sambar instead of Sambhar near Ajmer. Mr. Grant quotes the report of Major Impey, which has not been printed as yet but considerable extracts from which are to be found in a learned paper by Mr. C. U. Wills, I.C.S., on the Chhattisgarh States, published in the Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. XV. 1919. I have since obtained a copy of the original report and I find that Mr. Grant's quotations are not exact and Major Impey's report contains certain statements which bear on them the hall-mark of untruth. Writing on the 29th May, 1863, Major J. B. Impey states :
v2.c48.15
2. The Maharajahs of Patna claimed direct descent from a race of Rajput Rajahs of Garh Sambal—near Mynpooree and count back the individuals of this race for thirty-two generations.
v2.c48.16
3. It is narrated that these Rajahs used to be in constant attendance at the Court of Delhi till the last named Hitambar Sing, having intrigues and run off with one of the king's daughters, was pursued and killed and his family forced to fly. Amongst the wives of this Rajah was one who, escaping, arrived *enceinte*, in Patna, and found refuge with the chief of Kholagurh, being one of the 8 garhs, as marginally noted and which at that time alone formed the territories of Patna, being comprised within the three rivers, Ung, Mahanuddy and Tel and bounded on the west by Khurriar (a possession then of Jeipoor) and Brinda-nawagurh ; and the chiefs of which took it in turns a day at a time to exercise full authority, as Rajah, over the whole. She was placed in charge of the said chief's Brahmin at Rampoor and there gave birth to a boy, named Ramaee Deo. The chief adopted the boy—and subsequently on his coming of age, himself being sick and weary of rule, resigned his position to him. Ramaee Deo soon after this succeeded in murdering the other seven chiefs, and usurping to himself the whole and permanent authority in Patna. Finally he married a daughter of the ruler of
v2.c48.17
Orissa through whose influence and power he was enabled to maintain his usurped position.”
v2.c48.18
The difference between the statements recorded by Motte in 1766 and Impey in 1863 is very great. The State officials had become bold enough to claim that this supposed petty chief of Mainpuri had become of sufficient importance to intrigue with a princess of the Royal House of Delhi. There is a greater amount of difference with regard to the date of the migration of the ancestor of the family. Motte stated that the ancestor of the family came to Orissa a couple of centuries before his time (1766), say, in the middle of the sixteenth century. At this time Akbar was on the throne of Delhi. Will any respectable scholar admit today that Hitamber Sing, a petty Jaigirdar or military adventurer, intrigued with the daughter of the great Mughal Emperor? Grant quotes the names of 26 generations of the chiefs of Patna up to his time. Impey quoted 25 up to Vajra-Hiradhara Deva who died in 1762. Even if we take 20 years to be the average duration of the rule of a chief we cannot name Hitambar Sing, the reputed father of Ramai Deva, to be a contemporary of Akbar. It became clearly necessary now to furnish additional information to to State historiographers and compilers of Gazetteers in order to cover this defect. Let us turn to the next editions of the District Gazetteer. It should be sufficient at this stage to note that a suggestion of Motte made in 1766 and recorded and printed in 1799 was sufficient to put the State officials on their guard in 1863 and 1870; that Somer near Ajmer of their tradition may be Sambhal a great Rohilla stronghold. Therefore, in all subsequent “informations” supplied to British officials they stuck loyally to Sambhal and gave the go-by to the Sambhar of the artless "Chhamkaran" of 1766 who supplied facts as he knew them to Motte. In between Motte and Impey or Grant another Englishman gave a different turn to the ancestry of the chiefs of Patna-Sambalpur-Sonpur. Sir Richard Temple states in 1863, in his *Report on the Zemindaris and other petty Chieffaincies in the Central Provinces*—"The Sambalpur and the Patna Rajas are sometimes said to be descended from or related to the royal or independent Haihaibansi dynasty of Ratanpur, in the Chhattisgarh plateau, which was formerly the capital of Chhattisgarh."1 This rambling reference by the late editor of the Indian Antiquary only proves a wild craving on the part of these chiefs to secure another Rajput ancestry if the Chauhan claim failed.
v2.c48.19
We must now return to examine the reports or "informations" supplied by the next generation of State officials in which they attempted to cover the deficiencies of their predecessors. This is to be found in the Bengal Provincial Gazetteer, containing the account of the Feudatory States of Orissa. This volume, printed at the Bengal Secretariat Press, was edited by Mr. L. E. B. Cobden-Ramsay, I.C.S. I have not seen a more glaring instance of carelessness on the part of an editor. Mr. Cobden-Ramsay has permitted himself to be hoodwinked by his own subordinates as well as many of the State officials. He has failed to consult printed books on the subjects on which he was writing and was careless enough to rely entirely on his Indian subordinates. His predecessor Mr. L. S. S. O'Malley, I.C.S., who compiled the Gazetteer [Figure: Bronze Mask of Buddha, Chandwar Ca, 11th Century A. D.]
v2.c48.20
¹ *Reprinted at Nagpur, 1923, p. 8, foot-note.*
v2.c48.21
Image of Śiva, Great Temple, Khiching.
v2.c48.22
Buddha Touching Earth, Lalitagiri
v2.c48.23
Kuvera, Lalitagiri
v2.c48.24
Nagis, Khiching.
v2.c48.25
of the District of Sambalpur, is no better, in comparison. We can detect even now that some sort of intrigue was being carried on between the petty Chiefs of Orissa for the establishment of their Rajput ancestry and one party got hold of the subordinate establishment of some British office and managed to introduce their version of the ancestry of their own Chiefs. Messrs. O'Malley and Cobden-Ramsay, totally oblivious of facts as recorded by Impey and Grant on their particular points, printed the "informations" supplied to them by the State officials through their Indian clerks. We find two of them mentioned by O'Malley in a footnote on p. 23 of the Gazetteer of the Sambalpur District, printed in 1909. "I am indebted to Babu Satyabadi Padhi and Babu Nand Kishore Bohidar of Sambalpur for assistance in preparing this account of the legendary history of Sambalpur."¹ It was the interest of the Sambalpur party to prove that Mayurbhanj and Keonjhar were at one time their dependencies and the editor of the Gazetteer quietly printed these names among the 18 dependencies of Sambalpur.² He did not consider it necessary to look into the authenticity of the claim of the Patna-Sonpur-Sambalpur group. Mr. Cobden-Ramsay proved himself to be far more adaptable to the needs of the Sonpur-Patna party. He admitted everything placed before him to be true and gave the stamp of truth to these statements by including them in the Gazetteer. His book gave the chiefs of Patna and Sonpur some right to claim that their ancestor came to Orissa 600 years ago, *i.e.*, in the beginning of the 14th century instead of the middle of the 16th.¹ There is no evidence of the existence of Patna as a separate State or of the migration of the ancestor of the present house in the 14th century.
v2.c48.26
¹ Bengal District Gazetteer, Sambalpur, 1909, p. 23.
v2.c48.27
² Ibid., p. 22.
v2.c48.28
¹ *Bengal District Gazetteer, Orissa Feudatory States, p. 232.*
v2.c48.29
Mr. Cobden-Ramsay has also provided a second line of ancestors for the Sonpur-Patna group of chiefs by stating another legend according to which one Hamir Deva fled from Garh Shambar and established himself at Manikgarh in the hills of Khariar. He went to fight and was killed. He had seven queens, six of whom became *Satis*. The seventh was pregnant and found refuge in the forest between Patna and Khariar. She was protected by the aborigines of the Binjhal tribe and her son was Ramai Deva.² The uncertainty of the Rajas of Patna and Sonpur about their ancestry and their eagerness to ensure their descent from Rajput stock is proved by their inclusion of two different lines of ancestors on the same page of the account. Evidently there was some one behind one of the parties who had sufficient knowledge of ancient Indian History and Epigraphy to understand the value of the futile suggestion that Sambhal near Mainpuri was the original home of the so-called Chauhans of Patna-Sonpur and not Sambhar or Sakambhari in Rajputana.³
v2.c48.30
² *Ibid., p. 284*
v2.c48.31
³ *Ibid., p. 285.*
v2.c48.32
The claim to Rajput descent of the Sonpur-Patna family entered into a new phase in the last quarter of the century from the present day. This attempt was headed by a respectable scholar, Mr. B. C. Mazumdar, formerly a lawyer of Sambalpur and at present a lecturer in the Post- Graduate Department in Arts of the Calcutta University and a Vakil of the Calcutta High Court. Mr. Mazumdar’s first work on this subject was published in 1911 and is entitled “Sonpur in the Sambalpur tract.” In Chapter VI Mr. Mazumdar says: “The legendary account of the Chohan Rajas is that one Humeru of the family of Prithviraj of Delhi, having lost his position at Mainpuri in in Upper India during the time of the Mahomedan rulers, came with his queens to the borders of Patna State and established a little principality. How this Rajput adventurer came upon this far-off tract after travelling many hundred miles through rugged hills and dense forests is not now easy to ascertain.” (p. 44-45). This account differs from the previous “Informations” supplied to the compiler of the Bengal Gazatteers, of Sambalpur, and the Orissa Feudatory States, in the fact that the pilgrim of an unknown caste described by Motte in 1766 who had become a Chauhan of Sambhal near Mainpuri in Impey’s report of 1863 and Grant’s Gazetteer in 1870, and who had gone up at least three hundred years anterior in date than the date given by Motte, now becomes a member of the family of Prithviraja. Mr. Mazumdar perhaps does not know that the Chahamanas continued to rule over the North-Eastern portion of Rajputana after the fall of Delhi and Ajmer in 1192-93. So it became convenient to make Humeru, and Hitambar Sing, come to Orissa instead of following the fortunes of Hari Singh or Hammira I of Ranastambhapur or Ranthambhor in the Jaipur State. It also became convenient for Mr. Mazumdar through the accommodation of Messrs. Cobden-Ramsay and O’Malley to assert that Mayurbhanj and Keonjhar once acknowledged the suzerainty of the Chauhan Rajas of Patna and Sambalpur. He says on p. 48 : “some old records disclose the fact that the Chauhan Rajas of Patna and Sambalpur issued orders of demand of revenue upon some chiefs of Keonjhar and Mayurbhanj. It is to be regretted that no trace of these records can now be obtained, though they were inspected either by Sir A. Grant himself or by his responsible assistants some time previous to 1862.”¹
v2.c48.33
¹ *Sonpur in the Sambalpur tract.*
v2.c48.34
There is *no mention* of such records in the Gazetteer of the Central Provinces either in the first edition of 1868 or in the second edition of 1870. Mr. Mazumdar henceforth can only be regarded as the historiographer of the chiefs of the Patna-Sambalpur-Sonpur group and not a critical scholar. The next feat attempted by Mr. Mazumdar was in 1925 in his “Orissa in the Making,” published by the University of Calcutta. Here he accepts as correct the statements in the Bengal Gazetteers of 1909 and 1910 that “so early as the 12th or 13th century A. D. one Humeru of the family of the Chohan Rajputs of Mainpuri in the United Provinces came to Patna with his wife” (p. 219). The most important addition in this instalment is that “the son of Humeru born in Patna State became by his mythical powers the chief of the eight Malliks who had the government Patna and Sambalpur in their hands and thus established the Chohan rule in the Kosala country by being installed at Gad-Sambar,” (p. 220). The only proof in support of the statement which Mr. Mazumdar can quote is the acceptance of this tradition by the Maratha Rajas of Nagpur and by Major Impey. As if any of the Bhonslas or their officers were in a position to ascertain the true
v2.c48.35
Surya on Horse-back—Surya Deul Konārak—Puri District
v2.c48.36
Rajput origin of any family 1 In the British period the story of Motte stands out distinctly as the only correct version of the ancestry of the Patna-Sambalpur-Sonpur group of chiefs among the number of accounts supplied to writers like Messrs. Impey, C. Grant, Cobden-Ramsay and O'Malley. Every true scholar will grieve to find the respected name of Mr. B. C. Mazumdar included in this group. The chiefs of Patna-Sambalpur-Sonpur group were descended from a pilgrim of some unknown caste who came on pilgrimage from Sambar to Jagannath in the earlier part of the 16th century, founded a kingdom which later on became powerful, and began to claim Rajput origin and who, with the help of British Gazetteer writers, have now become the agnates of Prithviraja II of Delhi and Ajmer.
v2.c48.37
I shall take only one other instance among the chiefs of Orissa, *viz.*, that of Mayurbhanj. The Bhanjas of Orissa were independent monarchs in the time of Ranabhanja I. This chief began as a semi-independent ruler sometime in the 8th century A. D. From the rank of a Ranaka he rose to be a Maharaja and his descendants ruled over almost the whole of Orissa from modern Mayurbhanj to the Gumsur Taluk of the Ganjam district of Madras. Many chiefs of Orissa still call themselves Bhanjas and rule over many of the Garhjat States and Zamindaries. The present chiefs of Mayurbhanj, instead of claiming descent from the ancient Bhanja kings of the inscriptions, started a new theory about their descent in the British period. Evidently the Oriya "*Chhamukarana*" of Mayurbhanj and the allied group of chiefs were neither so intelligent nor so forward as those of the so-called Chauhan chiefs of Patna- Sambalpur-Sonpur. The theory they started was very fallacious and therefore it immediately became open to attacks of the writers. Mr. Mazumdar says: "It is narrated that a son of a celebrated Man Sing of Jaypur in Rajputana came to Puri and got the zemindari of Hariharpur on marrying a daughter of the then Gajapati Raja of Puri and that subsequently the eldest son of this adventurer became the ruler of the northern half of the State and the second son became the proprietor of the southern half, which developed into the State of Keonjhar. It is also stated that Jay Sing after the acquisition of Hariharpur conquered Mayuradhvaja, then holding the Gadi at Bamanghati in the western part of the State, and thus effected a territorial extension. The new ruler after this acquisition of territory assumed the surname of Bhanja as a measure of policy. The absurd dates recorded in the family annals may be wholly disregarded, as the Temple of Jagannath and the progenitors of the Gajapati Rajas were not in existence earlier than the middle of the 12th century A. D." (pp. 119-20)." The statements of Mr. Mazumdar are perfectly correct. In Mr. Cobden-Ramsay's Gazetteer of Feudatory States of Orissa it is stated that "the Mayurbhanj State was founded some 13 hundred years ago by one Jai Sing who was a relative of the Raja of Jaipur in Rajputana. Jai Sing came on a visit to the shrine of Jagannath at Puri and married a daughter of the then Gajapati Raja of Orissa and received Hariharpnr as a dowry. Of his two sons, the eldest Adi Sing, held the Gadi of the Mayurbhanj State. The Annals of the Mayurbhanj Raj family, however, say that Jay Sing came to Puri with his two sons. Adi Sing and Jati Sing, the elder of whom was married to a daughter of the Puri Raj.” (p. 239). The Rajputs were not in existence as a generic clan in the 6th century A. D. and the Kachhwaha State of Dhundhar, Amber or Jaipur was not in existence at that time. Therefore, the “informations” supplied to the compiler of the Gazetteer was totally wrong. The attempt of the modern chiefs with the affix Bhanja of Orissa can, therefore, be regarded only as a very ill-conceived attempt to obtain Rajput ancestry. The “Chhamakarana” of the Mayurbhanj State was not equipped in Rajput history or ancient Indian chronology and therefore, he made statements to the compiler of the Gazetteer which would make any other man blush in the 20th century.
v2.c48.38
What, then, is the real origin of these claims to Rajput ancestry on the part of the chiefs of Orissa? Vizianagram is certainly not in Orissa but I have included it within this enquiry because it fell within the zone of influence of Orissa up to 1550 and in the southernmost limit on eastern coast within which Rajput origin is claimed by Indian chiefs. In all three cases we find that a date is claimed for the migration when the Rajput had no existence and when the migration could not have taken place. The connected circumstances are such as to make the migration theory absolutely improbable. In the case of Patna only persistent and intelligent attempts have been have been made by State officials and state historiographers to make the claim more acceptable in the light of modern research, but older records of English writers and modern discoveries in ancient Indian chronology have proved these claims to be entirely false. The only cause which I can assign for this craze for Rajput origin is the preponderance of the Rajputs as warriors and mercenaries in the 17th century when under the Mughals they spread their fame from Balkh to Assam and from Kashmir to Ahmadnagar. Rajputs of Malwa entered the service of the Sultans of Ahmadnagar and Golkonda and there was a rush for Rajput ancestry all over India even on the part of princes whose blood was blue when the Agnikula Rajput was a barbarian clothed in his war paint. The real origin of the Bhanja chief of Mayurbhanja is now being recognised by critical scholars like Rai Bahadur Ramaprasad Chanda¹ and Rai Bahadur Hira Lal.² We must close our enquiry regarding the Rajput origins in Orissa at this point.
v2.c48.39
¹ Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1822-25, and 1923-24.
v2.c48.40
² Epigraphia Indica, Vol. XVIII, p. 290.
Linked texts (2)
- Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
- Epigraphia Indica