A History of Assam c17: Chapter XI. The Jaintia Kings

A History of Assam c17

Language: English

Chapter XI. The Jaintia Kings

c17.2

The early history of the people of Jaintia is as obscure as that of the Kachāris, but in later times the references made to them in the chronicles of Ahom rule are supplemented by some inscriptions on coins, copper-plates and buildings.

c17.3

The dominions of the Rajas of Jaintia included two entirely distinct tracts of country, namely, the Jaintia hills, which are inhabited by a Khāsi tribe called Synteng, and the plains country, south of these hills and north of the Barāk river, in the Sylhet district, now known as the Jaintia parganas, the inhabitants of which are Bengali Hindus and Muhammadans. The former tract was the original home of the dynasty. The latter was a later annexation, but it was this area which first bore the name of Jaintia, and which is mentioned in Paurānik and Tāntrik literature as containing one of the fifty-one famous shrines sacred to Durga.

c17.4

There is practically no difference between the inhabitants of the Khāsi, and those of the Jaintia, hills. They are both of the same physical type, and they speak the same language—Khāsi—which is remarkable as being the only surviving dialect in India, excluding Burma, of the Mon-Khmer family of languages. As stated elsewhere, dialects of this linguistic family are believed to have been spoken by the earliest Mongolian invaders of India, and at one time they were probably current over a considerable area. The evidence of philology, therefore, suggests the hypothesis that the Khāsis and Syntengs are a remnant of the first Mongolian overflow into India, who established themselves in their present habitat at a very remote period and who, owing to their isolated position, maintained their independence, while their congeners in the plains below were submerged in subsequent streams of immigration from the same direction. It may be suggested that they drifted to their present home in more recent times, just as the Mikirs, Kukis and other tribes have moved considerable distances within the short

c17.5

Origin of Khāsis and Syntengs.

c17.6

space of a hundred years, but this is very improbable. The place and river names in the hills they inhabit all seem to be Khāsi, and the people themselves have no traditions of any such movement. A peculiar feature of this country is furnished by the curious monoliths, which the Khāsis and Syntengs used to erect in memory of their dead. Similar monoliths are found amongst the Hos and Mundas in Chota Nagpur, who speak dialects belonging to the same family of languages.

c17.7

As in the case of other rude tribes, the tendency of the Khāsis and Syntengs was to split up into numerous petty communities each under its own head. From time to time some ambitious chief would conquer and absorb some of the adjoining communities, and the kingdom thus formed would continue to exist until the weakness of his successors gave an opportunity for the prevailing disintegrating tendency to assert itself, when it would again dissolve into a number of small independent communities. The people seem at one time to have been polyandrists of the matriarchal type, and, in the hills, property still descends through the female. The chief of a Khāsi State is succeeded, not by his own, but by his sister's, son.

c17.8

There is no record or tradition suggesting that the Khāsis and Syntengs ever owned allegiance to a single prince. When they first emerge from obscurity, we find them, so far as we can trace them, split up into the very same units that existed at the beginning of the last century. Of these the chief were the State of Jaintia, already described, and that of Khairam or Khyrim, the capital of which was at Nongkrem, not far from Shillong. Of the latter, as of the Khāsi States generally, there is no historical record, and the references in the annals of other kings are scanty and vague.

c17.9

With the Rajas of Jaintia, however, thanks to the extension of their dominions into the southern plains, the case is different; and the inhabitants of the Jaintia parganas preserve in their traditions a list of kings, of whom the seventh, Dhan Mānik, is known to have been reigning at the close of the sixteenth century. The accuracy of the list, so far as this and the subsequent kings are concerned, is confirmed by inscriptions on coins* and copper-plates, and by references made to them in the chronicles of the Ahom kings. Assuming that the entries in the list relating to kings anterior to Dhan Mānik are equally reliable, and allowing to each of them a reign of sixteen years, we obtain the following approximate dates of these earlier rulers:—

c17.10

| Parbat Rāy | . | . | . | 1500 to 1516. |
| Mājha Gosāin | . | . | . | 1516 to 1532. |
| Burhā Parbat Rāy | . | . | . | 1532 to 1548. |
| Bar Gosāin | . | . | . | 1548 to 1564. |
| Bijay Mānik | . | . | . | 1564 to 1580. |
| Pratāp Rāy | . | . | . | 1580 to 1596. |
| Dhan Mānik | . | . | . | 1596 to 1605. |

c17.11

As the names of these rulers are preserved, not in the traditions of their original subjects, the inhabitants of the Jaintia hills, but in those of the plains people over whom their rule was subsequently extended, it may be inferred that Parbat Rāy was not the founder of the dynasty. It may also be conjectured that it was he who extended the sway of the Jaintia kings into the plains tract at the foot of his ancestral kingdom in the hills. His name Parbat Rāy “the Lord of the Hills” seems to confirm this supposition. It may, therefore, perhaps be concluded that the inhabitants of the Jaintia hills already formed a single State in 1500 A.D., and that year may be taken roughly as the date when they became the masters of the Jaintia parganas. From the fact that all the kings mentioned in the above list bear Hindu names, it may further be inferred that, at this time, they had already been brought, to some extent at least, under the influence of the Brāhmans.

c17.12

∗ Unfortunately very few of the Jaintia coins bear the name of the king in whose reign they were minted. This omission is said to be due to a condition imposed by the Koches when they overran Jaintia. A description of these coins will be found in a paper contributed by me to the J. A. S. B., for 1895. The dates on these coins, which seem to have been modelled on those of the Koch kings, correspond to A.D. 1669, 1670, 1708, 1731, 1734, 1782, 1785 and 1790; and it may be assumed, when nothing is known to the contrary, that, as in the case of the early Ahoms, they were issued shortly after the accession of a new king.

c17.13

There is a tradition, which may or may not be founded on fact, that, prior to its conquest by these hillmen, the Jaintia parganas were ruled by a line of Brāhman kings, of whom the last four were Kedaresvar Rāy, Dhanesvar Rāy, Kandarpa Rāy and Jayanta Rāy.

c17.14

The first reference to the inhabitants of the Khāsi and Jaintia hills in the records of other States occurs about the middle of the sixteenth century, in the annals of the Koch king Nar Nārāyan. At that time, as later, the two most prominent chiefs seem to have been the Rajas of Jaintia and Khairam. The former is alleged to have been defeated and slain by Nar Nārāyan's brother Chilarāi; and his son, after acknowledging himself a tributary, was set up in his place. Profiting by his example, the chief of Khairam, it is said, hastened to make his submission, and undertook to pay an annual tribute of a considerable amount. From his name, Virjya Vanta, it may be assumed that he also was more or less under the influence of Brāhman priests.

c17.15

The name of the Jaintia king who was defeated by Chilarāi is not mentioned, but, from the date of the occurrence, it would seem to have been Bar Gosāin or Bijay Mānik. The *Rājmāla*, or Chronicles of the Kings of Tippera, contains a vague reference to an alleged invasion of Jaintia by the Tippera king, Braja Mānik, about the same time as that of the Koches under Chilarāi.

c17.16

At the beginning of the seventeenth century the Jaintia king Dhan Mānik seized Prabhākar, the chief of Dimarua, whose family had formerly been vassals of the Kachāris. He appealed to the Kachāri Raja, who demanded his release and, meeting with a refusal, invaded Dhan Mānik's kingdom, routed his army, and compelled him to sue for peace. He acknowledged himself a tributary of the Kachāri monarch and gave him two princesses in marriage; he also made over his nephew and heir-apparent as a hostage.

c17.17

Soon afterwards Dhan Mānik died, whereupon the Kachāri king released Jasa Mānik and installed him as king at Jaintiapur.

c17.18

Subsequently, with a view to embroil the Kachāris with the Ahoms, Jasa Mānik sent messengers to the Ahom king, Pratāp Singh, offering him one of his daughters in marriage on the condition that he should send to fetch her through the Kachāri country. The refusal of the Kachāris to permit this had the anticipated result, and in 1618 A.D. war broke out between them and the Ahoms.

c17.19

There is a tradition that Jasa Mānik went to Koch Bihār and married a daughter of Lakshmi Nārāyan, the ruler of the western Koch kingdom, who died in 1622. It is said that he brought back with him the image of Jaintesvari, which was thenceforth worshipped with great assiduity at Jaintiapur.*

c17.20

Jasa Mānik was succeeded in turn by Sundar Rāy, Chota Parbat Rāy and Jasamanta Rāy. The last-mentioned ruler was a contemporary of the Ahom king Nariya Raja, who in 1647 sent envoys to him to open friendly relations. The occasion may possibly have been his accession to the throne, in which case we may fix the dates of the previous rulers tentatively as follows:—

c17.21

| Jasa Mānik | . | . 1605-1625. |
| Sundar Rāy | . | . 1625-1636. |
| Chota Parbat Rāy | . | . 1636-1647. |

c17.22

The friendly intercourse with the Ahoms did not last long. A subject of the latter power, who had been granted permission to go to the Jaintia frontier for trading purposes, was seized under Jasamanta's orders, for some reason which has not been recorded. He was subsequently released, on the representation of the Ahom king, but his property was not given up, and this led to reprisals. The passes were closed; some Jaintia traders at Sonapur were made prisoners, and nine years elapsed before the quarrel was amicably settled.

c17.23

In 1658 Jasamanta's grandson Pramata Rāy rebelled against him, but was unsuccessful.

c17.24

∗ This image is known to have been in Jaintiapur at the time of the Ahom conquest in 1708.

c17.25

Jasamanta died in 1660 and was succeeded by his son Bān Singh. The latter was ousted by a relative named Pratāp Singh, who came from Bengal, where he had apparently been in exile. Pratāp Singh was deposed in his turn, by Lakshmi Nārāyan, who caused him to be put to death. Pratāp Singh’s reign must have been extremely short, as news of his death reached the Ahom king, Chakradhvaj Singh, before the envoy whom he had deputed to announce his accession to the throne. When this envoy arrived the Ahom king refused to receive him or to read the letter which he carried, as he thought that to do so would bring him bad luck. Lakshmi Nārāyan asked the Ahoms for the rendition of the province of Dimarua, which had belonged to his ancestors, but they refused saying that they had taken it from the Muhammadans. Lakshmi Nārāyan continued to press his claim, whereupon, in 1678, the Ahom king broke off all relations with him.*

c17.26

Lakshmi Nārāyan built a palace at Jaintiapur, the ruins of which still exist. There is an inscription on the gateway in which its erection by Lakshmi Nārāyan is set forth; it bears an indistinct date which has been read as 1632 Sak, equivalent to 1710 A.D., but as Rām Singh was ruling in 1707 there must be some mistake; the correct reading is perhaps 1602 Sak or 1680 A.D.

c17.27

The following additions may now be made to the conjectural chronology of the Jaintia kings :—

c17.28

| Jasamanta Rāy | . | . 1647-1660. |
| Bān Singh | . | . 1660-1669. |
| Pratāp Singh | . | . 1669 |
| Lakshmi Nārāyan | . | . 1669-1697. |

c17.29

Lakshmi Nārāyan was followed by Rām Singh who reigned until 1708 A.D. He came into collision with the Kachāris and also with the Ahoms. The following account of the operations is taken from one of the Ahom *Buranjis*.

c17.30

∗ Wade's rough translation of a *buranji* which is no longer available is the only authority for the period from 1668 to 1678, but the narrative there given is fairly full and there seems to be no reason to doubt its accuracy.

c17.31

In 1707 the Ahom king, Rudra Singh, invaded the dominions of the Kachāri king, Tāmradhvaj. The latter invoked the aid of Rām Singh, who collected an army and was preparing to march to his assistance when the Ahom army withdrew and Tāmradhvaj sent word to say that help was no longer needed. Rām Singh now determined to turn the situation to his own advantage and obtain possession of his neighbour's country. With this object he lured him into his power and carried him off to Jaintiapur. Tāmradhvaj was kept a close prisoner for some months, but at last he managed to send a letter invoking the aid of Rudra Singh. The latter wrote to his captor demanding his release and, failing to obtain it, despatched two armies to invade the Jaintia dominions. One army under the Bar Barua went through the Kachāri country to Khāspur and entered the Jaintia parganas from the east, while the other, under the Bar Phukan, starting from Jāgi, marched over the Jaintia hills direct to Jaintiapur.

c17.32

The force proceeding *viâ* Khāspur was the first to arrive. Rām Singh had contemplated resistance, but was deterred on seeing the strength of the Ahom army, and prepared for flight. His nobles, however, who had all along opposed his policy in regard to the Kachāri king, would not permit him to escape and leave them to bear the brunt of the invasion; and they insisted on his surrendering himself to the Ahom general. The other Ahom army, under the Bar Phukan, after meeting with and overcoming a determined resistance, at a place some twenty miles within the hills, advanced steadily, and joined hands with the Bar Barua at Jaintiapur, leaving garrisons in eight fortified positions along the line of march.

c17.33

So far the expedition had been a complete success. This was due partly to the fact that the Ahoms had not hitherto done anything to stir up the people against them. They now, however, proclaimed the annexation of the country. This was the signal for a general rising of the Syntengs, whose opposition had been only lukewarm so long as it had been merely a question of upholding their Raja in a policy of which they did not approve, but who were ready to fight to the last against an attempt to subvert their cherished independence. The details of the operations have already been given in the history of Ahom rule* and it will suffice here to say that the hillmen at last succeeded in getting rid of the invaders. Their Raja, however, was taken a prisoner to Rudra Singh's camp, where he died of dysentery in 1708.

c17.34

The heir-apparent, Jay Nārāyan, who was also a captive, gave two of his sisters in marriage to Rudra Singh. He was eventually released and returned to his own country. He appears to have ruled from 1708, when he succeeded his father, to 1729 when Bar Gosāin came to the throne.*

c17.35

Bar Gosāin enjoyed an unusually long reign of nearly 40 years. He abdicated in 1770, in favour of Chatra Singh, and became a *Sannyāsi* or religious mendicant. These facts are set forth in an inscription on a copper-plate recording the grant of certain lands to a Brāhman. The prime minister and commander-in-chief are cited as witnesses to the grant; and, from their names, it would appear that, while the latter was a Hindu, the former was a Synteng who still adhered to the tribal beliefs of his forefathers. The grant is stated to have been made with the consent of the Raja's nephews and nieces, so that inheritance through the female appears to have been still the custom in the Jaintia royal family.

c17.36

∗ *Ante* page 175.
* The dates of Bar Gosāin and his successors are given in a Jaintia Settlement Report which was written by Loch in 1839, and was found among the records of the Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet by Chandra Kanta Sen, who effected the settlement of 1897. I have followed the dates there given, except in the case of Bar Gosāin, whose abdication is mentioned in a copper-plate inscription bearing a date equivalent to 1770 A.D. The dates do not in all cases correspond to those on the (anonymous) coins, which were presumably issued to mark the accession of successive kings. If the dates given by Loch are correct, the explanation may be that there was sometimes a delay in issuing the new coins, owing to the postponement of the coronation ceremony or for some other reason. The coins which were probably issued by Bar Gosāin and Chatra Singh were dated two years, and those by Jatra Nārāyan and Rām Singh II one year, after the date of accession given by Loch. There is a coin bearing a date corresponding to 1785, which cannot be explained in this way. Possibly Bijay Nārāyan succeeded in this year and not in 1786.

c17.37

There is a tradition that Bar Gosāin and his sister Gauri Kuari were taken captive by the Siem, or chief, of Khairam, but escaped by the aid of men sent by Amar Singh, the Siem of Cherrapunji. Two villages in the Jaintia parganas are still held rent-free by the chief of the latter State, and it is said that they were given to Amar Singh as a reward for his services on this occasion. The feud between Jaintia and Khairam seems to have been of long standing; and it still existed at the time of the annexation of Jaintia in 1835.

c17.38

Chatra Singh, who, as we have already seen, succeeded Bar Gosāin in 1770, was the first ruler of Jaintia to come into collision with the British. In 1774 the country is said to have been conquered by a British force under a Major Henniker, but it was restored on payment of a fine. No record is forthcoming of the causes which led to this expedition, but probably it was undertaken as a punishment for some act of aggression against the inhabitants of the adjacent plains of Sylhet.

c17.39

Jatra Nārāyan succeeded Chatra Singh in 1781, and was himself succeeded by Bijay Nārāyan in 1786. The latter is named as ruler in a copper-plate deed of grant prepared in 1788 A.D.

c17.40

Rām Singh II succeeded Bijay Nārāyan in 1789. His coins were issued in 1790, which was presumably the year of his coronation. A copper-plate inscription bears record of a land grant made by him in 1813.

c17.41

In 1824, when the Burmese were threatening an invasion, David Scott opened negotiations with this prince, but he was reluctant to compromise his independence by any engagements so long as this could be avoided. A letter was addressed by the British Political Officer to the Burmese forbidding them to enter Jaintia territory. They ignored this letter and called on the Raja to come in and make his submission, on the ground that he was a vassal of the Ahom kings to whose position they had succeeded. A party of Burmese soon afterwards appeared near the Jaintia frontier, but they withdrew on the arrival of a small British detachment to reinforce the Raja's troops. The subsequent events will be described in the general narrative of the Burmese war.

c17.42

Chatra Singh.

c17.43

Jatra Nārāyan and Bijay Nārāyan.

c17.44

Rām Singh II.

c17.45

Rām Singh II died in 1832 and was succeeded by Rājendra Singh, who was deposed in 1835, on the annexation of the country by the British, as narrated in Chapter XI.

c17.46

The above account, fragmentary as it is, represents all that has yet been ascertained of the history of Jaintia. As regards the religion of the people, it would seem that the Syntengs were never much influenced by the Brāhmans, and that it was only the families of the Raja and of his leading nobles that were brought partially within the fold of Hinduism. The Rajas belonged to the Sākta sect and, however lax they may have been in obeying the prescribed restrictions in the matter of food and drink, they were very particular in the observance of the ghastly system of human sacrifices laid down in the *Kālika Purān*. There is a spot in the Fāljur pargana, where part of Sati's left leg is said to have fallen, and here human victims were immolated yearly on the ninth day of the Durga Puja. Similar sacrifices were also offered on special occasions, such as the birth of a son in the royal family, or the fulfilment of some request made to the gods. Frequently the victims were self-chosen, in which case, for some time previous to the sacrifice, they enjoyed the privilege of doing whatever they pleased without let or hindrance. Sometimes, however, the supply of voluntary victims ran short, and then strangers were kidnapped for the purpose from foreign territory.

Linked texts (2)

Kālikāpurāṇa — Sanskrit
Rājamālā — Śukreśvara o Bāṇeśvara, Bengali