Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c16.s1.t1: Who were the Pratihāras?

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c16.s1.t1

Language
English

Who were the Pratihāras?

c16.s1.t1.1

There is a late legend in Cand’s Rāso, which groups the Parihāras or Pratihāras³ along with three other Rajput clans—the Cauhan (Cāhamāna), Powār (Paramāra), and Solanki (Caulukya)—as “Agnikula,” deriving their origin from a sacrificial fire-pit (agnikuṇḍa) at Mount Abu. The myth is apparently absurd, but it may well represent, as observed by Crooke, “a rite of purgation by fire, the scene of which was in Southern Rajputana, whereby the impurity of the foreigners was removed and they became fitted to enter the Hindu caste system.”¹ According to this view, therefore, the Pratīhāras were of foreign extraction, and we have further reason to hold that they were a branch of the famous Gurjaras—one of those nomadic Central Asian tribes that poured down into India along with or soon after the Hūṇas through the north-western passes during the period of political ferment following the disruption of the great Gupta Empire.² This seems evident from the Rajor (Rājyapura) stone inscription, dated V. E. 1016 or 959 A. D. in the reign of Mathanadeva, a feudatory of Vijayapāladeva of Kanauj.³ The former is therein explicitly described as belonging to the Gurjara Pratīhāra lineage, since the phrase “Gurjara-Pratīhārānvayaḥ” occurring in it must be interpreted to mean “Pratīhāra clan of the Gurjaras.”⁴ Some scholars, on the other hand, think that the word Gurjara in this expression does not denote the tribe or people of that name but ‘the Gurjara country (Gurjjaratrā-bhūmi).’⁵

c16.s1.t1.2

³ It is obvious that the two forms are variants of each other,

c16.s1.t1.3

¹ Journal Royal Anthropological Institute, 1911, p. 42.

c16.s1.t1.4

² See Bom. Gaz., IX, pt. I, pp. 471-478; Ind. Ant., XL, pp. 21-24; J. R. A. S., 1904, p. 640; Ibid., 1909, p. 54, etc.

c16.s1.t1.5

³ Ep. Ind., III, pp. 263-267.

c16.s1.t1.6

⁴ Ep. Ind., III, p. 266; see also Ind. Ant., XL, p. 22.

c16.s1.t1.7

⁵ C. V. Vaidya, H. M. H. I., Vol. II, pp. 31, 32, note; Ind. Hist. Quart., June, 1934, pp. 337-38.

c16.s1.t1.8

although by mistake one list of the traditional 36 clans gives a place both to Parihār and Pratīhāra (Forbes, Rāsamālā, II, pp. 235-36).

c16.s1.t1.9

This view, however, will not bear scrutiny, as a close perusal of the Rajor inscription would show. In line 12 there occur the words “... Tathaitat pratyāsanna Śrī Gurjjara vāhita samasta-kṣetra sametaḥ ...,” which has rightly been translated by “together with all the neighbouring fields cultivated by the Gurjaras.” Here the cultivators themselves are clearly called Gurjaras, and it may, therefore, be reasonable to presume that in the earlier part of the grant, in line four too, the term bears a racial signification. That the Pratīhāras belonged to the Gurjara stock is also confirmed by the Rāṣṭrakūṭa records, and the Arab writers like Abu Zaid and Al Ma‘sūdī who allude to their fights with the Juzr or Gujaras of the north¹. These references are undoubtedly to be held as applying to the Pratīhāras of Kanauj, for at this period they were the only power to contend against the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, with whom sometimes the Arabs even co-operated against Kanauj. Besides, we have the important testimony of the Kanarese poet Pampa, who expressly calls Mahīpāla “Ghūrjararāja.”² This epithet could hardly be applied to him, if the term “Ghūrjara” bore a geographical sense denoting what after all was only a small portion of Mahīpāla’s vast territories. Lastly, support for the foreign or Gurjara origin of the Pratīhāras may further be found in certain outlandish personal names of the earlier Pratīhāra rulers of Mandor (Māṇḍavyapura, near Jodhpur), from whom, as remarked by Dr. R. C. Majumdar, “it is not impossible that the imperial Pratīhāras of Kanauj also branched off.” Thus the Jodhpur inscription of Bāuka informs us that Haricandra was surnamed Rohillāddhi, and Narabhaṭṭa had another name Pellāpelli on account of his prowess.³ Surely these do not sound Aryan names, and what is more notable is that they were assumed when the Pratīhāras of Rajputana had wholly become merged into the Hindu Society.¹

c16.s1.t1.10

¹ J. B. B. R. A. S., XXI, pp. 422-24.

c16.s1.t1.11

² See Infra.

c16.s1.t1.12

³ Ep. Ind., XVIII, pp. 97-98.

c16.s1.t1.13

¹ See also *Ind. Hist. Quart.*, IV (1928), p. 746.

c16.s1.t1.14

The inscriptions of the dynasty, however, suggest a different line of enquiry. The Gwalior inscription of Bhoja says:

c16.s1.t1.15

“Slāghyas—tasyānujosau maghava-madamuṣo Me-
ghanādasya saṃkhye,
Saumittris tīvra-daṇḍaḥ Pratiharaṇavidher yaḥ
Pratīhāra āsit.”²

c16.s1.t1.16

² *Ann. Rep. Arch. Surv. Ind.*, 1903-04, pp. 280, 283, verse 3; *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 107, 110.

c16.s1.t1.17

i.e., “Saumitri, his honourable younger brother of staff severe, was the door-keeper (Pratīhāra), since he repelled (the enemies) in the battle with Meghanāda, the destroyer of Indra’s pride.”

c16.s1.t1.18

According to it, the forebear of this family was Lakṣamaṇa, the brother of Rāma, and he came to be known as Pratīhāra owing to his act of repelling (pratiharaṇa-videḥ) displayed against his enemies, like Meghanāda, in battle. Again, the Jodhpur inscription of Bāuka belonging to the Pratīhāra house of Rajputana tells us :

c16.s1.t1.19

“Svabhrātṛā Rāmabhadrasya Pratīhāryaṃ kṛtaṃ
yataḥ,
Śrī - prattihāra - vaṃśo yaṃ atas - c - onnatim-
āpnuyāt.”

c16.s1.t1.20

i.e., “Inasmuch as the very brother of Rāmabhadra performed the duty of door-keeper (pratīhāra), this illustrious clan came to be known as Pratīhāra.”³ Thus in both the records although the name Pratīhāra is derived from different memorable events in the life of Lakṣamaṇa, the point common to both is that the clan is said to be descended from the same epic hero, and thereby held as a genuine indigenous one. It may be added that in the Gwalior *praśasti* Vatsarāja, father of Nāgabhaṭa, is definitely represented as “foremost among the most distinguished Kṣatriyas” and as one who “stamped the noble race of Ikṣvāku with his own name by virtue of his blameless conduct.”¹ This proud claim is further strengthened by Rājaśekhara, the dramatist at the Pratīhāra court, who calls his patron Mahendrapāla “Raghu-kulatilaka” i.e., ornament of the race of Raghu in the *Viddhaśālabhañjikā*,² and “Raghugrāmaṇi” or leader of Raghu’s family in the *Bālabhārata*.³ Similarly the poet uses the expression “Raghuvamśamuktāmaṇi” or pearl-jewel of Raghu’s line for Mahīpāla in the last named work.⁴ But we need not attach any special significance to the above traditions, for such legendary origins are often ascribed to ruling families to give them a noble and well-known pedigree. The alleged connection with Lakṣamaṇa is clearly mythical; and it was perhaps fabricated by *praśastikaras* when the barbarian hordes had gained power and were thoroughly Hinduised, adopting Sanskritic names and Brahmanical forms of worship, and stood in dire need of carrying back their genealogy to find a respectable place in Hindu social polity.⁵

c16.s1.t1.21

³ *J. R. A. S.*, 1894, p. 4, verse 4; *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 95, 97; *Prog. Rep. Arch. Surv. W. circle*, 1906-07, p. 30.

c16.s1.t1.22

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, pp. 108, 111, verse 7.

c16.s1.t1.23

² Cf. “Raghukulatilako Mahendraḥ” (canto I, stanza 6, ed. Ārte).

c16.s1.t1.24

³ Cf. “Devo Mahendrapālanṛpatiḥ śiṣyo Raghugrāmaṇiḥ” (canto I, stanza 11).

c16.s1.t1.25

⁴ I, 7. See also R. R. Haldar, *Ind. Ant.*, Oct. 1928, pp. 181-184, for the view that the Pratīhāras belonged to the solar (Raghu’s) race.

c16.s1.t1.26

⁵ See, however, Dr. D. C. Ganguly, *Ind. Hist. Quart.*, June, 1934, pp. 337-343, where he has tried to show that the Pratīhāras were originally Brahmans and then became Kṣatriyas, and that they were so called because the founder of the family occupied the office of Pratīhāra or door-keeper. For a criticism of the same, see *Indian Culture*, January, 1935, pp. 510-512.

Linked texts (2)