Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c23: Chapter XIX

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c23

Language
English

Chapter XIX

v1.c23.1

(We now come to the history of the Panjab-the land par excellence of the Indo-Aryans,-during the first portion of the mediæval Hindu period. That history is certainly very meagre and it is hence that we are taking it the last. It seems there were no powerful kingdoms in the Panjab during this period and the details too that are to be found in the records of adjoining countries are scanty and fitful. Yet, we may make an attempt to understand the history of this important part of India from such materials as are at present available.)

v1.c23.2

Hiuen Tsang mentions in the Panjab the following kingdoms or rather tracts that were independent kingdoms at one time; for many of them in his time were subject to Kashmir. He mentions on coming into India proper after crossing the Indus:-1 Taxila (Rawalpindi) 2 Sinhapura (Salt range tract bounded on the west by the Indus) and 3 Uraśa (Haripur or Hazara). These kingdoms were formerly subject to Gāndhāra but were then under Kashmir. The fact appears to be that when the Hun empire fell, Kashmir made itself master of most of its Indian provinces. The seat of the Hun power was at Gāndhāra and it had even engulfed Kashmir; but Kashmir regained its independence under Pravarasena when Mihirakula was defeated by Yaśo-dharman of Mandsaur about 500 A. D. Kashmir grew stronger still under the Karkota dynasty before the very time of the visit of Hiuen Tsang, i. e about 600 A. D. and ruled over Taxila, Sinhapura* and Uraśa. The next kingdoms mentioned by him are 4 Punach and 5 Rajapuri or Rajauri. These were also subject to Kashmir and were in fact normally so. The next kingdoms mentioned are 6 Tekka 7 Chinabhukti, 8 Jalandhara 9 Kuluta and 10 Satadru. We do not know much of Chinabhukti which was probably only a province (Bhukti) and is mentioned by Hiuen Tsang because it was once inhabited by some Chinese princes. We know very little also of Kuluta and Satadru where no kings are mentioned and which probably were subject to Kanauj in his time, for Hiuen Tsang mentions that the Sutlej was to the west of this Satadru kingdom. We get some information about Tekka and Jalandhara from contemporary records which we proceed to relate.

v1.c23.3

∗ Sinhapur of Hiuen Tsang has been identified with the Salt Range mountain region by Cunningham properly enough. He thinks that the capital was at Mallot where there are ruins. The fort is situated on a precipitous outlying spur of the Salt Range overlooking the plains at a height of about 3000 feet above the sea-level. The temple and gateway which are the only remains of antiquity here are in the Kashmirian style of architecture showing that the country as stated by Hiuen Tsang was in possession of Kashmir for some time. (Arch. S. I. Cunningham Vol V).

v1.c23.4

Taking Jalandhara first, a name still surviving in the Jalandhara city we find the following short notice of it by Cunningham which we take from his "Coins of Mediaeval India" (pp. 99-100) "The rich district of Jalandhara originally comprised the two Doabs lying between the rivers Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. The capital of the country was Jalandhara and Kot Kangra was its chief stronghold. The name is derived from the Danava Jalandhara killed by Siva.* The dead demon stretched: it is said, across the Panjab. The Titan's mouth is said to be Jvalamukhi and his feet are at Multan; and the part about Jalandhara is said to be his back and hence it is called Jalandhara Pitha a name slightly altered by Akbar to Jalandhara Bit. Another name for this country is Trigarta i. e. watered by the three rivers Ravi, Bias and Sutlej. Hemachandra in his Kosa says जालंधरास्त्रिगर्ताः स्युः and this name Trigarta is also still in use being handed down from the days of the Mahabharata. The royal family of Trigarta believes that they are descended from Susarman of the Mahabharata fame (who with Duryodhana made a raid on Matsya cattle) and who fought in the great war against the Pandavas. They are lunar race Kshatriyas and take the suffix of Chandra to their name all along. An inscription in the temple of Baijanath at Kīragrāma dated A. D. 804 names Jayachandra as the Rāja of Jālandhara. The Rājatarangiṇī states that Prithvi Chandra the Rāja of Trigarta fled before Śankaravarman. Kalhaṇa again mentions one Indra Chandra as the Rāja of Jālandhara about 1040 A. D. Their coins show the same symbol viz: a horseman which symbol is used by most coins of the Panjab and of Kabul and Prithviraj of Delhi and even Mahomedan kings like Mahmud and Ghori copied it”.

v1.c23.5

∗ The story of the demon Jalandhara is given in the Padma Purana. He is said to be a son of the Ganges by the Ocean and was blessed by Brahma who asked the Ocean to recede and make room for him and the sea accordingly receded from the Himalayas. The story is like the story about Konkan based on the geological aspect of the Panjab seashells being still found at the foot of the Himalayas. The idea of the demon stretching across the Panjab is well explained by Cunningham by the running of the two rivers Satlej and Ravi in ancient times parallel to each other upto Multan

v1.c23.6

The kings of Trigarta were sometimes dependent and sometimes independent throughout Mahomedan times and we shall have to relate the taking of the precipitous fort of Kangra in the history of Mahmud’s expeditions in the next volume. As in many hill kingdoms e. g. Assam, one and the same dynasty seems to have ruled over Jālandhara from the most ancient times down to the modern for reasons which we have frequently mentioned before. Jālandhara was lost as a kingdom in Mogul days though Kot Kangra still preserves the dynasty as one of local Rajas.

v1.c23.7

We go on to the Tekka kingdom. Hiuen Tsang says that the former capital was Sialkot or Śākala and that Mihirakula ruled there. It appears that the Hun kingdom of Sialkot which was destroyed by Yaśodharman was subsequently seized by a new dynasty of Kshatriyas called Tāk or Takshaka. This name is mentioned even in the Chachanāma. The kingdom lay between the Ravi and the Chinab i. e. to the north of the Jālandhara kingdom. The description given by Hiuen Tsang accords well with this position but the remark that the Indus was on its border seems somewhat strange unless we believe that the kingdom stretched across the Panjab from the foot of the Himalayas to the Indus. The people he says were not Buddhists a fact which agrees well with the story of the persecution of the Buddhists by Mihirakula who was himself a worshipper of Śiva and who hated Buddhism thoroughly though he was a foreigner. The Tāks were of course Hindus and remained so throughout their history. The famous chronicler of the Rajputs says that they were one of the 36 royal families of Kshatriyas but that they have left no trace of themselves now as they were entirely converted to Mahomedanism in Mahomedan times.

v1.c23.8

It is not quite clear if Thakkiya mentioned in the reign of Śankarvarman of Kashmir by Kalhaṇa is the same kingdom of Tāk; apparently this Tāk kingdom is referred to here though Kalhaṇa uses the word थक्किय which is not equivalent to Tāk (ताक). The थक्किय was assailed by Bhoja, king of Kanauj and was assisted by Śankarvarman. This is the only notice we get of the Tāk kingdom during two centuries. We do not know the name nor any detailed history of any king. That it was a powerful kingdom and did really extend up to the Indus is however clear from Hiuen Tsang's description of Multan, which he visited on his return journey after Sind. Multan, he records, was then subject to Tekka; as also another kingdom to the north which he calls Pofato. After Hiuen Tsang's days i. e. after Harsha's death, when Chacha became the ruler of Sind, he conquered Multan and added it to his dominions. In fact many parts of the Panjab were then either subject to Kashmir or to Sind, only two kingdoms being independent viz. Tāk or Tekka and Jālandhara in the eastern portion of the province.

v1.c23.9

We may here abstract an interesting account of Multan from Cunningham's Archeological Survey Report Vol. V pp 115-120: "The ancient fortress of Multan is situate about 4 miles on the left bank of the Chinab river. Originally it stood on an island in the Ravi which joined the Chinab in ancient times below Multan but which now joins it 32 miles above it. The Bias river also flowed in ancient times in an independent channel to the south of Multan though now it joins the Sutlej far higher up. In approaching Multan from Sind, Chacha had thus to cross first the Sutlej and then the Bias and he reached the left bank of the Ravi at Sikka which was a fort just opposite Multan on the south bank of the Ravi. The Chachanama always mentions Sikka-Multan which were on opposite banks of the Ravi. In Chacha's days the kingdom of Multan was ruled by a Tāki and was subject to Tāki in Hiuen Tsang's time. The Tāki ruler must have remained under Chacha as tributary for we find when Mahamad Kasim invaded Multan in 712 A. D. there was one Bajhra Taki ruler in Sikka who opposed him but who eventually left the place and crossed the Ravi over to Multan. Multan fell before Kasim and remained a Mahomedan kingdom throughout the mediaeval period.

v1.c23.10

Though this ends the history of Multan we may relate the history of the sun temple in Multan, a little further. Multan was also called Sāmbapur and the temple of the sun there was said to have been built by Sāmba a son of Shri Krishna when he was afflicted by skin disease. The sun is the god who is supposed to cure all skin diseases including leprosy and the temple of the sun at Multan was visited by Hindus chiefly from Sind and the Panjab but also from other parts of India. The temple was very rich. It is described by Hiuen Tsang as also by the Chachanama; by Biladauri again who writing about 815 A. D. says "The people circumambulated it and shaved their heads and beards". "The temple" says Istakheri in 975 A. D. "is situated in the most populous part of the city in the market of Multan between the bazaar of ivory dealers and coppersmiths. The idol has a human shape and is seated with its legs bent in a quandrangular posture on a throne made of bricks and mortar. Its whole body is covered with a red skin like morocco leather and nothing but its eyes are visible. Some say that the body is made of wood. The eyes of the idol are precious gems and the head is covered with a crown of gold." Some time after 976 A. D. Multan was captured by a Karmatian chief of Zelem, son of Shaiban, when the priests of the temple were massacred, the statue of the sun god was broken to pieces and the temple itself was converted into a mosque.

v1.c23.11

"But the zeal of the Hindus and the avarice of the Mahomedan rulers (for they profited from the offerings of the devotees) restored the sun god and a temple seems to have been built near the old one (as everywhere else in India e. g. at Benares, the Viśveśvara temple and at Ujjain, the old Mahākāla temple or at Ayodhya). Therefore although when Abul Rihan visited the city of Multan there was no temple nor statue, the worship of the sun god was flourishing when Idrisi wrote in 1130. Apparently in his time the Ravi had changed its course and it was now a little river—only an overflow from it in the rainy season. Kazwini in 1263 gives the same account but adds that the great mosque was near the temple i. e. in the very middle of the fort. The temple is described by the French traveller Therenot who visited the place in A. D. 1666. He describes the idol as clothed in red leather with a black face and two pearls for eyes. This was before Aurangzeb had begun his bigoted persecution of the Hindu religion. The final destruction of the temple and the idol is rightly attributed to him and the temple and the sun god exist no more. It may be added that this worship of the sun is Indo-Aryan and not borrowed from the Persians, as some believe. In the first place the Persians do not worship idols and the idol of the sun can only be Hindu. Its covering red leather, its ruby eyes and the halo crown round its head with its curing skin diseases are also Hindu ideas. Even on coins the sun is represented in this way. Thus says Cunningham* (Arch. S. R. Vol. V. p. 122) describing a coin “The reverse is a bust of a god which Princep refers to as the Mithra of the Persians, but which I believe to be the Multan sun god called Āditya. The head is surrounded by rays after the Indian fashion and quite different from the head dress of the Persian Mithra. (This coin Cunningham believes to belong to Dewaij founder of the dynasty which ruled in Sind before Chacha about the year 500 A. D. ).

v1.c23.12

∗ Cunningham describes the fort of Multan minutely. There are no remains of ancient structures, for in Multan stone is not available and buildings are built only of bricks. He therefore in order to find the history of the fort sank a well until undisturbed 'mother' earth was reached about 40 feet below the surface all of which was the accumulation of ages and he has given a most interesting description of the layers of debris found. " The accumulation of debris seems to be about one and a half feet per century. Two coins were discovered at a depth of about 10 to 12 feet, the upper one of Kaikobad A. D. 1286 the lower one of Sāmanta Deva of Kabul A. D. 900 or 950. Bricks found increase in size as one goes deeper. This shows that the ancients used larger bricks, But the two interesting discoveries made in this Archaeological well were the great masses of ashes found at two different depths. The upper one was about 3 feet thick and found below 15 ft. The position of this deposit corresponds with the period of Mahamad Kasim's conquest of Multan in 712 A. D. when the fort was stormed and burnt. The other layer of ashes was found at a depth of 32 feet which corresponds nearly with the period of Alexander's capture of the capital city of the Malloi. It is possible that this layer may be the remains of some conflagration that attended the massacre of the inhabitants committed by Grecian soldiers enraged at Alexander's wound. Even below this layer of ashes were found a shoemaker's sharpening stone and a copper vessel filled with about 20 coins square in shape but unrecognisable, being entirely coroded ". The last proves that coins were current in India long before Alexander's invasion (p. 129).

v1.c23.13

A second coin bears the same head and the name of Khushru Parvej of Persia showing that some parts of Sind were conquered by that king as even the Chachanama states. And the third coin bears the same sun god’s head. On the obverse is a legend with the words “king of Multan” at the end and on the reverse the rayed head of the sun with the name in Nāgari of “Shri Vāsudeva” and “Panchan Zabulistan”. This shows according to Cunningham that a king by name Vāsudeva ruled in Multan sometime very near the days of Chacha. He was probably the same as the Tāki mentioned in the Chachānamā.

v1.c23.14

Multan was known also for another temple and thence called Pehladpuri. The city was also called Kāśyapapura noticed in Greek histories as Kaspeira. Kāśyapa is supposed to be the father of Hiraṇya-Kaśipu and it is believed this demon ruled here and wanted to kill his son Pralhāda for worshipping Viṣṇu. The temple of Pralhāda at Multan was long famous, an annual mela being held about it on Narasimha’s birth-day. This temple was blown up by an explosion of a powder-magazine in its vicinity about 1859 A. D.

v1.c23.15

WHY THE PANJAB IS STILL INDO-ARYAN

v1.c23.16

The meagre details we have recorded regarding the three kingdoms of Tekka, Jālandhara and Multan raise the question why in the Panjab which is the undoubted home of the Indo Aryans and which has always been warlike, no flourishing Hindu kingdoms are found in this mediaeval period of Indian history. The fact appears to be that since the invasion of Alexander that province has usually been under the rule of foreign races. Indeed the Panjab has been the buffer province of India, always trampled down by conquering hordes from the north-west. When Alexander came he found here many kingdoms and peoples, more warlike than those he had met with in Asia thitherto. About 70 peoples are mentioned in the Panjab by Arrian as having opposed Alexander. The ancient Purāṇas and the Mahābhārata too mention many kingdoms in the Panjab; some names still surviving to the mediaeval period. Gāndhāra, Takshaśilā, Kekaya, Madra, Trigarta, Mālava Kshudraka, Śibi, Amba-shtha, Yaudheya, and many other warlike Kshatriya tribes had thus kingdoms in the Panjab when Alexander invaded India. Most of them were conquered and many Kshatriya warriors were massacred. Invasion after invasion followed Alexander's conquest. For a few years only the Panjab wus subject to Chandragupta and Aśoka but since 200 B. C. Bactrian Greeks (200-100 B. C.) Sakas (100 B. C.—100 A. D.) Kushans (100-300 A. D.) and finally Huns 400 A. D.) invaded India and ruled in the Panjab. Thus while Alexander had almost destroyed all Kshatriya kingly families, the Panjab was devoid of native rule from 200 B. C. to about 500 A. D. When the Hun power was overthrown native rule again established itself; but there were no powerful Kshatriya kingly families to assert themselves again and the province was therefore chiefly divided between Kashmir and Sind, while Gāndhāra to the west of the Indus and a seat of Hun power was, as we have seen, taken possession of by the powerful Kshatriya family of Kabul. Taxila and Sinhapur were in the possession of Kashmir; and Multan and Poḷato were in that of Sind their boundaries being conterminous. In eastern Panjab there were as stated above the two kingdoms of the Tekka which had seized the Hun kingdom of Sākala or Sailkot and Jālandhara.

v1.c23.17

How did then the Panjab remain Indo-Aryan as ethnology and tradition unmistakably prove, down to the present day? That is a most interesting question which rises here. Notwithstanding foreign rule for 1200 years in pre-Mahomedan times and Mahomedan rule for nearly 700 years again from 1000 A. D. to 1700 A. D. Panjab still is par excellence the land of the Aryans as Sir H. Risley has found. He has clearly shown that it is in the Panjab and Rajputana alone that the population is Indo-Aryan almost from the highest to the lowest strata. To understand this condition of things correctly we must go back to the Vedic period and trace the history of the Indian Aryans down to modern times.

v1.c23.18

When the Indo Aryans came to the Panjab in their migrations to the south in Vedic or Avestic times they found a land just to their hearts' desire, a land plain and fertile devoid of hills and ravines. These Aryans were an agricultural people and coming from the plains of Central Asia they were probably averse to living in a mountainous country. They liked a land which Manu designates Jāngala and which he describes as a fertile plain devoid of forest and with a dry climate like their Central Asian habitat. They found the Panjab just as they had wanted, but as the Avesta says it was extremely hot and full of serpents. The aboriginal Dravidian population here seems to have been sparse and as the Aryans settled and took to cultivation, that population receded southwards. It is hence that the Panjab is populated from the highest to the lowest strata by an Aryan population throughout its different layers. It may be remarked here that a country cannot be said to be inhabited by a people unless the cultivators belong to the same race as the rulers. In the Panjab the cultivators or the Vish are Aryans as has been said over and over again and it is hence that a land of the Indo-Aryans par excellence. The lowest strata or labourers and menials were probably of the Dāsa or Dravidian race but the province down to Alexander's conquest was generally full of the Aryan population which in this fertile land as in America in a short time must have multiplied and filled the whole country.

v1.c23.19

This people belonged to the first race of Aryan invaders or the solar race according to our view. The second race of Aryan invaders the lunar race people came subsequently through Gilgit into the valley of the Ganges like a wedge in the Indo-Aryan land then extending from Gāndhāra to Ayodhyā along the foot of the Himālāyas, a tract which has a milder climate than the parts west-wards. The new invaders could not expand either in the Panjab or in Oudh and hence spread southwards along the banks of the Jumna as far as the Vindhya range of mountains i.e. from Jubbulpore and Ujjain in the south to Allahabad and Ghazipur in the north. In this tract, however, the aboriginal population was denser and stronger and it remained practically the cultivator of the soil except in Kurukshetra, the tract where the lunar Indo-Aryans first settled. The condition of this southern tract, therefore, differed from that of the Panjab as the people consisted of two layers of population, the lower Dravidian and the higher Aryan. While the warriors and preists and traders were Aryan the cultivators and the artisans and labourers were Dravidian. The Aryans in this tract intermarried to a larger extent with the lower Dravidian population and hence grew up that mixture of Aryan and Dravidian races which characterises the population of the present United and Central provinces (as noted by Sir H. Risley.)

v1.c23.20

In Bengal the Aryans went later. Only some Brahmins went of themselves as religious teachers and some were even called by native kings. But into the Mahārāshtra the Indo-Aryans went in larger numbers. For as we have said they were fond of a dry open fertile plain and the plains of Mahārāshtra were just of this kind. There was a forest there no doubt but the country was not very hilly and the Indo-Aryans settled in this land with great enthusiam. These were of course Aryans of the second horde of invaders viz. of the lunar race and with their peculiar tendency they inter-married with the local Dravidian population. That population, was sparse and not thick. Hence the Indo-Aryans though they became mixed to some extent in Mahārāshtra imposed their language and their religion easily upon the people. Hence also it is that Mahārāshtra including Vidarbha or Berars is notably a land of the Indo-Aryans though not par excellence yet to large extent. As remarked above a land can be said to be inhabited by a people when the agriculturists belong to that people. In Mahārāshtra next after the Panjab the cultivators are Aryans or rather mixed Aryans; and hence it is that the yeomanry of Mahārāthtra has signalised itself so often in the history of India as a martial people.

v1.c23.21

To the further south i. e. in the Madras Presidency the Dravidian population was thick along the sea-coast and much more advanced in civilization than their brethren in the rest of the country. Brahmins alone, therefore, migrated into this land or were specially invited. Though they gave their religion to the people they could not give their language to them but on the contrary adopted the language of the latter. In Konkan on the west coast though the cultivators are Dravidians that Dravidian population was sparse and hence the Aryans imposed their language upon it but on the east coast i. e. in Āndhra, the Dravidian population was too numerous to be impressed and the Indo-Aryans chiefly mixed Aryans, eventually adopted the language of the people.*

v1.c23.22

Such in short is the history of the Aryan settlement of India down to the days of the last recasting of the Mahābhārata, which as we have shown elsewhere was contemporaneous with the invasion of Alexander. India was certainly fully populated in his days. It contained even then as the Mahābhārata Bhīshmaparva chap. 9 itself states, an Aryan, a mixed-Aryan, and a Mlechha population. The Aryans were in the Panjab and Oudh. The mixed Aryans were in U. P., C. P. C. I. and Mahārāshtra and in Aparanta (or modern Konkan) and even in Āndhra which the Mahābhārata list of countries includes among the Bharata-khanda peoples. To the south of this were the Dravidian Mlechhas (Pandya, Chola, Kerala, and others) and beyond India to the north were the other Mlechhas, Śaka, Barbara, Kāmboja and so on. It is necessary to add that Bengal (Anga, Vanga, Kalinga and Odra) was also included among Indian countries and had probably mixed Aryan populations. Let us now see what happened when inroads of foreign Mlechhas began to come, in the wake of Alexandre's invasion and almost destroyed all the Kshatriya kingdoms in the Panjab. We know from verified history that though after Alexander the Panjab was for a time included in the Maurya empire of Pātaliputra yet from 200 B. C. successive waves of foreign Mlechhas came into the Panjab and established strong kingdoms there. First came the Bactrian Greeks, then the Sakas, then the Yue-chi who under Kanishka had a wide empire over lands as well beyond the Panjab to the north as extending southwards into the present United Provinces. Naturally all Aryan ruling families in the Panjab were either destroyed; or were forced southwards. The Mālavas and other warlike independence-loving Kshatriyas in this way migrated into the plains of Central India. But the settled population of the Panjab remained Indo-Aryan as before. As water poured over a pot full of water cannot enter or disturb the water within, so the successive waves of invaders passed over the head of the settled population of the province. It no doubt carried away the ruling families but could not disturb or destroy the settled population of the country.

v1.c23.23

∗ We may say that even in Āndhra the language of the higher classes was Indo-Aryan for a long time, see note on the subject.

v1.c23.24

To understand this phenomenon we must try to realise how conquering nations and peoples in later times have moved and fared. In the primitive stages of the human evolution no doubt, settling expeditions of men, women and children are found and these usually settle in vacant or almost vacant tracts. In later history, however, conquering peoples usually come into tracts already fully peopled and settle therein not as cultivators but as superimposed ruling peoples. The cultivation of land and other work of labour and art are left to the already settled people. The conquerors generally reside in capital cities and towns and disperse over the country not into each village but over large divisions as Jagirdars or barons. This is what happened for instance when the Norman conquest of England took place. This is what we see actually happening in India under the British conquest of the country. Even when the conquering people are one in religion with the people already settled, though not in race, the conquering people remain above the country's old population like a separate layer. Living examples of this are met with even in the India of to-day. The Marathas of Scindia. Holkar or Gaikwar or the Moguls of the Nizam have not mingled with the population of their territories and they still remain as distinct layers superimposed, living mostly at the capital and in the larger district towns, as officers or greater landlords. Now it will be clear to anybody that such a population does not by the very laws of nature thrive. When the land is vacant, the population increases by leaps and bounds and within a couple of centuries fills the land. But a superimposed population enjoying the luxuries of a ruling people does not increase For instance, the Maratha population of the Indore or Baroda State or the Mogul population of Hyderabad is practically stationary and has not increased though near two centuries have passed since their rule was established over their respective territories.

v1.c23.25

Now consider what will happen supposing their rule is overthrown. The superimposed layer of the ruling people, separate as it is, will disappear without impressing the people in the least. The English, for example, will completely disappear if they lose their rule in India; for they not only do not increase but do not even make India their home. The Marathas of Baroda or the Moguls of Hyderabad will mostly retire to their respective home lands and those that have made the new country their home will remain if they do remain as a distinct people. Their number may even dwindle away under the adverse circumstances of their condition. The hypothetical case which we have here described was what must have actually happened in the Panjab during the successive waves of conquest over it. The Greek Bactrian rule was overthrown by the Sakas and left no remnant of its population. So was the succeeding Saka rule overthrown by Vikramāditya of 57 B.C. and left no trace in northern India and the Panjab. Even the Kushans who enjoyed a long extensive rule in the Panjab and adjoining lands from 150 A.D. to later than 300 A.D. left no remnant. The Kushans even if numerous were overlords spread in cities and towns and could not have increased in population and when overthrown must have left the land or dwindled away. The Huns came in about 400 A.D. were supreme for about a hundred years and were overthrown about 500 A.D. Their Gāndhāra kingdom went to the Kshatriya kings of Kabul as we find from Hiuen Tsang and their second kingdom in the Panjab about Sākala was changed into the Tekka kingdom. A Huna kingdom appears to have been left in India somewhere, for a Huna Kshatriya family is mentioned later on. But they did not impress the rural population which remained uncontaminated. And even if some remained the facility afforded by the Indian social tendency towards the formation of subcastes bound by interdiction of marriage must have prevented all intermixture of races. If we therefore consider carefully how foreign conquests in historical times affect populations fully established, we can see that the later conquering peoples, the Greeks, the Sakas, the Kushans and the Huns have disappeared rather than that the original settling Indo-Aryan population fully settled in the Panjab could have disappeared leaving the later Scythic peoples in the country as many Indian antiquarians seem to believe. This is the true explanation of the undoubted ethnic fact that the population of the Panjab is still almost pure Indo-Aryan though successive waves of conquest from the Greek down to the Mogul have from time to time passed over it.

v1.c23.26

Two important inevitable consequences, however, followed from these successive foreign invasions and foreign rules. The people of the Panjab Indo-Aryan as they are lost that love of independence which always everywhere characterises the Aryan people. Strong in physique and warlike and brave in their temperament, the people of the Panjab yet rarely asserted themselves in later history and became independent. The Indian theory of politics explained in the first book also came in to aid viz. that kingship is given by God to those only who have performed austerities in former lives; that the people have nothing to do with the form and the personnel of government and that their duty is to obey rulers established by divine will. The warlike people of the Panjab, therefore, fretted very little if the Arabs ruled from Multan or the Kashmirians ruled from Sri Nagara. Many Kshatriya families no doubt still remained in the land as overlords of one village or groups of villages. Nay, many Rajput families appear to have come back into the Panjab from Rajputana and elsewhere as we shall have to show in the next volume, during the period of native rule between 500 and 1000 A. D.; but they never tried to establish new Hindu kingdoms, and remained content with their petty overlordships. We have often said a Kshatriya or rather Rajput (for the word Kshatriya or Khatri in later times became degraded in the Panjab and applied to Kshatriyas taking to mercantile occupations) must have some place, a petty village at the least, where he may be called a rājā and bowed to by a barber or a tenant. As even the Bhagavadgita observes, Īśvarabhāva or the attribute of lordship belongs to the Kshatriya by his very nature. Yet in the Panjab even among the Rajputs this natural instinct does not seem to have developed into a strong irrepressible desire for establishing self-rule. The people for a long while had become accustomed to foreign rule and did not care who ruled them so long as they were left in the enjoyment of their hereditary lands and villages with their hereditary customs and manners.

v1.c23.27

The other point of importance to be noticed is that during the first period of 1200 years' subjection to foreign rule in the Panjab, there was no difference of religion between the rulers and the ruled. The foreign invaders were with one exception Buddhists and they too were half Hindu and half Buddhists. There was, therefore, no bitterness of religious difference added to the gall of foreign rule during this period. The Huns of Mihirakula were not Buddhists but were Śaivites. But that too was in response to and in consonance with the changed sentiment of the people. A reaction had already set in against Buddhism and Mihirakula did not offend the majority of his subjects when he persecuted the Buddhists as related bitterly by Hiuen Tsang. Under Mihirakula too, therefore, there was no religious difference between the people and their foreign rulers and it is hence perhaps that the warlike sturdy people of the Panjab remained reconciled to foreign rule. The tendencies generated by this long subjection to foreign rule consequently were too strong to be suppressed by even the difference in religion when Mahomedan conquest under the Turks of Mahmud came over the land in 1000 A. D. How it affected the people little we shall see in our next volume.

Linked texts (6)