Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c8: Chapter IV

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v1.c8

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IV

v1.c8.1

Before proceeding further it is necessary, as it would be convenient, to describe the condition of India which obtained at this time in all its details. The reign of Harsha was, so to speak, a brilliant ending to a period which was passing away. Like the flame that bursts into brilliance before it expires, the condition of the country in the days of Harsha was flattering in every respect. But the hey day of Aryan civilization had been reached and the mediæval period of Ancient Indian history was to commence, in which Indo-Aryan civilization had its decline and its fall. It would, therefore, be interesting as well as proper at this place to take a stock of the condition of the country at this time, in order that we may see whence and wherefore India or rather Indo-Aryans declined and fell.

v1.c8.2

Fortunately, the materials for taking such a survey of the condition of the country are ample and reliable. In the first place we have the Records of the Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang who was a minute observer and a detailed recorder. Secondly, we have the Harsha Charita of Bāṇa, another contemporary writer of eminence and credibility. The value of the Harsha Charita has been much underestimated by European scholars who cannot go to the original. His praise of Harsha is characterised by Sir Vincent Smith, in constrast with that by Hiuen Tsang, as fulsome and his performance is described as irritating, although his power as a writer is admitted and his descriptions are conceded as vivid. But if one dives beneath the gingle of his words and the hyperbole of his concepts one finds in the Hasha Charita an immense amount of detailed information about the condition of the country which can only come from a minute and accurate observer of things. I cannot but remark here that I have drawn much of my inspiration and information from Bāṇa’s Harsha Charita and in depicting particularly the state of the country and the people I shall have constantly to refer to him. These two great authorities for this period are supplemented and supported by epigraphic and other materials for constructing a detailed description of the country at this time. We proceed first to describe the people of India, or rather their race and their castes, their appearance and their occupations.

v1.c8.3

We will begin, of course, with the description recorded by Hiuen Tsang. After stating that India was called Shintu or Hintu (a name which corresponds with the Sind and Hind of the Arabs) Hiuen Tsang says ‘Among the various clans and castes of the country, the Brahmins were purest and most esteemed; so from their excellent reputation the name Brahmins’ country had come to be a popular one for India.” (Watters Vol. I p. 141). It is indeed a matter of pride as well as regret to Brahmins that they still maintained their pre-eminence by their good conduct and intelligence and their reputation outside their country in the seventh century was exactly the reverse of what it is to-day. The land bore their name outside the country and the name was even a popular one. Next to the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas also maintained their character for high morals and simplicity of life as also for valour. At page 157 we find the further remark; “The Kshatriyas and Brahmins are clean-handed and unostentatious, pure and simple in their life and very frugal.” Thus the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas, the two leading castes of India were in those days deserving of the foremost rank which has always been assigned to them in Indian society. At page 168 the four castes of India are thus described by Hiuen Tsang.

v1.c8.4

“There are four orders of hereditary caste distinctions. The first is that of the Brahmins, they keep their principles and live continently, strictly observing ceremonial purity. The second order is that of the Kshatriyas, the race of kings. This order has held sovereignty for many generations and its aims are benevolence and mercy. The third order is that of the Vaisyas or the class of traders, who barter commodities and pursue gains far and near. The fourth order is that of the Śūdras or agriculturists. These toil at cultivating the soil and are industrious at sowing and reaping. These four castes form classes of various degrees of ceremonial purity. The members of a caste marry within the caste. Relations by the father's or mother's side do not inter-marry and a woman never contracts a second marriage." Here is a vivid description of Indian caste in the first half of the seventh century, A. D., recorded by an intelligent foreign observer who lived among the people and understood their language. Indian caste as we have observed elsewhere is based on both race and occupation. Both the factors are important and we shall discuss them here in detail.

v1.c8.5

That the Indian people in their higher and many lower strata also, are Aryan by race, nobody can now deny although mixture to a certain extent with the Dravidians, the original inhabitants of the land, has taken place. The prevailing type, however, was then and is still Aryan. Measurements of the head and the nose taken at the census of 1901 have indubitably proved that the people of the Panjab and Rajputana are unmistakably Aryan and those of the United Provinces and the Bombay Presidency are mixed Aryans and Dravidians. The prominence and length of the nose of the people of India is remarked even by Hiuen Tsang. "They have long noses and large eyes". (page 151). Bāṇa too refers to the same peculiarity when he makes the poetical remark on Skanda Gupta's nose that it was as long as the pedigree of his master's family.* The people of India were then thus unmistakably Aryan and it is therefore strange to observe that European scholars are still labouring under the old bias of tracing the origin of the Kshatriyas of India to Scythic and Hunic peoples. This purity of race was greatly preserved in India in the higher castes as well as the lower owing to restrictions imposed on marriage by inveterate custom and legal precept. Hiuen Tsang himself remarks that Indians marry within the caste, and there are several classes within the four castes according to their degree of purity. Although outside races like the Śakas and the Hūṇas came to India these were always treated as separate classes of Kshatriyas and they rarely married with the old Kshatriyas. This fact coupled with the paucity of the foreigners accounts for the still distinctly preserved Aryan type in the peoples of the Panjab and Rajputana though these parts had especially been the scenes of the inroads of foreign peoples.

v1.c8.6

∗ In contrast with the high nose of the Aryans Bāṇa marks also the low nose of the aboriginal people, see his description of the Śabara youth brought to Harsha in the Vindhya jungles "अवनट-नासिकं चिपिटाधरम्" page 310 H.C.

v1.c8.7

It is interesting to observe that in the matter of marriage, there is a distinct difference in the remark of Megasthenes and that of Hiuen Tsang, the former belonging to the time of Chandragupta of 300 B. C. and the latter to the time of Harsha of 600 A. D. Megasthenes remarks that the Brahmins were allowed to marry wives from the lower castes.* In fact this tallies with the provision of Manu which allows the higher castes to marry into the lower, the progeny when the lower order was immediately next being of the same caste as that of the father. This rule of Manu has, as we know, been abandoned in the later Smṛitis and in order that the progeny may be of the same caste both the husband and wife must be, it is now declared, of the same caste. This view of the later Smṛitis is reflected in the remark of Hiuen Tsang. But it must be noticed here that the old order of things of Manu’s days had not yet passed away entirely in the time of Harsha. Caste was still somewhat loose and higher orders were allowed to marry in the lower next without the lowering of the caste of the progeny. Hiuen Tsang reports that Harsha’s daughter was married to Dhruvabhata and that while the former was a Vaiśya the latter was a Kshatriya. So also Bāṇa records that Harsha’s sister was married to Grahavarmā Mankhari of Kanauj and we shall see that while Harsha's family name ended in Vardhana or Bhūti indicating their caste to be Vaiśya, the name of the Maukaris ended in Varman showing that their caste was Khatriya. Thus the times of Harsha were an intervening step in the process of the rigidification of caste ending in the next few centuries in the total prohibition of marriage outside the caste.

v1.c8.8

∗ See Mc'CRindle's Ancient India Megasthenes and Arrian page 86 "No one is allowed to marry out of his caste or to exchange his profession for another. An exception is made in favour of the philosopher who for his virtue is allowed this privilege."

v1.c8.9

Anuloma marriages were not thus uncommon in the times we are describing. Such marriages took place usually in castes only one degree apart and rarely though that may be, they took place even in castes two or more grades apart. For Bāṇa records that he had two Pāraśava brothers i. e., sons of a Brahmin by a Śūdra wife. Here the word Pāraśava is used which shows that the progeny is not treated as illegitimate. The caste of the sons was not that of the father, but in case of Brahmins marrying Kshatriya wives or Kshatriyas marrying Vaiśya wives the caste of the progeny was treated the same as that of the father. For it does not appear that Dhruvabhata's son by the daugter of Harsha was treated as less than a Kshatriya. Ample epigraphic evidence is available to show that Brahmins actually married Kshatriya wives, or even Vaiśya wives without loss of caste,[*] by the progeny.

v1.c8.10

We have described caste in its racial aspect and shown that though Anuloma marriages were allowed, even in the times of Harsha, they were being gradually disallowed and that such marriages taking place among the three higher castes which were Aryan, there was not much deterioration of race. We shall now advert to caste in its occupational aspect, and the first prominent remark to make is, that while the occupation of the first two castes ramained much the same as in the ancient days of Manu, the occupation of the Vaiśyas had undergone a restriction. They were husbandmen and cattle-breeders pre-eminently as well as traders in the days preceding the Christian era; but now they remained only traders. “ कृषिगोरक्ष्यवाणिज्यं वैश्य-कर्म स्वभावजम् ” says the Bhagavadgītā but the *krishi* and *gorakshya* or agriculture and cattle-rearing had ceased to be the occupation of tne Vaiśyas and had now become the occupation of the Śūdras. Hiuen Tsang distinctly says that trading was the only occupation of the Vaiśyas and agriculture was the occupation of the Śūdras. The result was, that notwithstanding that the race of many of the agricultural classes in India was distinctly Aryan, they came to be classed as Śūdras or fourth grade of the people. The fact that the lowest population of the Panjab and Rajputana is still distinctly Aryan in type also proves that many of the peoples, now and even then looked upon as Śūdras were in reality Aryan by race. The peoples who have most suffered in this way are the Jat populations of the Panjab, Sind and the United Provinces and the Gurjaras who were cattle breeding Vaiśyas have suffered most in the same manner and it may be added that the Marathas have suffered still more in this manner on our side. That the Jats are distinctly Aryan no body even now doubts. “ If appearance is any index, the Jats are clearly of Aryan origin ”, says the Muzzuffernagar Gazetteer. They are fair, tall and with long heads and noses. Their Aryan race is admitted by Sir H. Risley also in the Census report for 1901. It seems, therefore, strange that historians still assign to them a Scythian origin. The Gurjaras also are in appearance Aryan though they are darker in complexion. The Marathas too are in appearance Aryan though their noses are less distinctly Aryan there being in their case some mixture with the Dravidian races. Unfortunately these three peoples have suffered at the hands of both Indian and European savants. Indian Shastris of later days with their bias against agriculture and cattle-rearing and the custom of widow marriage which obtains among the three have treated them as Sūdras.* And European scholars have treated them as Scythic in origin, being influenced by the strange bias that the manlines which these races displayed in later history could not have belonged to the long settled people of India but could only have characterised fresh hordes of invaders like the Kushanas and the Huns who were known to be of the Scythian race. It is, however, undoubted that the Jats most distinctly and the Gujars and Marathas in lesser degree are undoubted Aryan in race and their being treated as Sūdras by Indian Shastris and as Scythians by European scholars is, historically and ethnically, incorrect.

v1.c8.11

∗ The Mandsaur stone inscription given in Corp. Ins. III pages 152-4 shows that Ravikīrti a Brahmin married Bhānuguptā a Vaiśya and had three sons one of whom Abhayadatta was a viceroy in the Nerbudda province of Emperor Yaśodharman. Dr. Fleet adds "we have an epigraphical instance of this practice in the Ghatotkacha cave inscription of Hastibhoja, a minister of the Vākātaka Mahārāja Devasena. It tells us that Hastibhoja's ancestor, a Brahmin married according to the precept of revelation and tradition a Kshatriya wife through whom Hastibhoja was descended, in addition to some other wives of the Brahmin caste whose sons and descendants applied themselves to the study of the Vedas." See Arch. Sur. Re. Western India vol. IV page 140.

v1.c8.12

Though these names, it must be admitted, came into use or prominence at this time, this cannot be an argument to hold that they were new races come into India at or a little before this time. New names arise from various causes as we shall find in later history; and it need not surprise us that the names Jat, Gujar and Maratha came into use in the sixth or sometime before the seventh century. The word Jat is found, first in Chandra's grammar, where he uses the word in the sentence अजय-जटों हूणान् given to illustrate the use of the Imperfect. Gurjara and Mahārāshtra are words used by Hiuen Tsang to denote two kingdoms. Bāṇa also uses the word Gurjara as the name of a people or king in the word गुर्जरप्रजागर. As already shown the word Gurjara appears in a grant of Dadda also. Mahārāshtra is a name which we do not find used earlier, though the language Mahārāshtri is mentioned even by Vararuchi of the first century A. D. As applied to the present Maratha country Mahārāshtra is used by Hiuen Tsang only, previous Indian writers such as Varāha Mihira using other names to denote it.* The word Mahārāshtra is a Sanskrit word which can well be interpreted as denoting a people or a country but what do the words Jat and Gujar or their Sanskrit originals Jarta and Gurjara mean? They are probably the names of peoples and not countries according to any view. There were different castes among the Jats except Brahmins. So also among the Gujars some were Brahmins, some Kshatriyas, some Vaiśyas and so on, much in the same way as there are Maratha Brahmins, Maratha Kshatriyas and Maratha Vaiśyas. This subject is of a controversial character and we leave it to be discussed in a note, but we may mention here that there is a caste of Brahmins in Ujjain which styles itself Gújar Gaud. They do not call themselves Gujaratis as Gujarati Brahmins do but Gujars, and it is well known that among the many sub-sections of Rajputs, there is at present a section by the name of Gújars. The mention by Hiuen Tsang of a Kshatriya king in Gurjara need not therefore surprise us.

v1.c8.13

∗ Hiuen Tsang's remark that women never contract a second marriage must be understood as relating to the three higher grades only, as there can be no doubt that Sūdras allowed widow mirriage even in his days. It is possible to suppose that the Jats, Gurjars and Marathas though Aryans have borrowed this custom from the Sūdras with whom as agriculturists or cattle grazers they must have come inte a close and constant contact.

v1.c8.14

To return to our subject, in the days of Hiuen Tsang, agriculture had ceased to be the occupation of Vaiśyas and had become the occupation of the Śūdras, a fact that need not therefore compel us to look upon many of the so-called Śūdras of the present day as Dravidian in race nor treat them as Scythic in race as European scholars are disposed to do. This change in the occupational aspect of caste differentiates the time of Harsha from the time of Manu. Another important change in occupation can be gathered from another statement of Hiuen Tsang. At page 170 Watters Vol. 1 we find, "sovereignty for many successive genarations has been exercised by Kshatriyas alone. Rebellion and regicide have occasionally arisen other castes assuming the distinction." In the old caste organisation of Manu's days Kshatriyas alone could be kings. And native tradition asserts that this barrier was first overthrown by Chndragupta who destroyed, with Chanakya's help, the line of the last truly Kshatriya kings, the Nandas. Since then Sūdras, Brahmins and Vaiśyas have often become kings in the history of India. But even if they become kings their status in society or their caste does not rise. They still remained what they originally were and retained their caste by their own opinion and the opinion of the people. It is hence we see that Hiuen Tsang mentions the different castes of the ruling kings and his remark always should be looked upon as neither haphazard nor erroneous. When he says a particular king was a Kshatriya we must accept the word in its true signification. For he does not make even the great Harsha, his own benefactor and patron, a Kshatriya, but states clearly that he was a Vaiśya, a fact which is also indicated by the suffix Vardhana assumed by many kings of the family and also the suffix Bhūti* in the name of Pushya-Bhuti, its founder mentioned by Bāṇa. We will presently enumerate the suffixes usually taken up in their names by the different castes, but here this instance of Harsha itself will suffice to show the corectness of the information of Hiuen Tsang, as also the fact that notwithstanding his kingly position, the caste of the ruler remained what it was. We will now proceed to describe each caste separately and detail its characteristics during this period, as can be gathered from the evidence available.

v1.c8.15

∗ In a grant of Pulakeśin of this time, it first appears.

v1.c8.16

We shall of course begin with the Brahmins who were by long recognition at the top of the people and who appear to have still deserved this position by their intelligence and high morals. They were in fact the leaders of thought both among the orthodox or Hindu people and among the unorthodox or the Buddhists and the Jains. The latter, though they in theory rejected caste appear to be still caste-ridden and intelligent Brahmins and even Kshatriyas without probably losing their caste joined their ranks as teachers and thinkers for the sake of the high position they attained to as heads of monasteries or congregations†. Tho following remarks, however, should be taken to

v1.c8.17

† For example a brother of the Brahmin king of Samatata was the head of the Nālandā monastery and a Buddhist teacher as mentioned by Hiuen Tsang.

v1.c8.18

*शर्मा देवश्च विप्रस्य वर्मा त्राताच भूभुजः । भूतिर्दत्तश्च वैश्यस्य दासः शूद्रस्य कारयेत् ॥ यम quoted by Kullūka (also Vishnu P III, 10 v, Manu II 30).

v1.c8.19

apply to those Brahmins who professed the orthodox faith.

v1.c8.20

And the first thing we have to remark is that Brahmins yet formed one caste without subdivision throughout India; the modern distinctions based on territorial divisions had not yet come into existence. The distinctions now known as Pancha Drāvidas and Pancha Gaudas had not arisen; not to speak of the many still minor sub-castes, into which Brahmins are at present further subdivided. The only distinction then known, appears to be that of Sākhā or Charana i. e. school of Vedic ritual or recitation. The gotra was also always mentioned, and the pravara sometimes. In fact in this matter modern Brahmins are diametrically different from the Brahmins of the days of Bāṇa. The modern Brahmins scarcely know what their gotra is and to what Vedic Sūtra they belong though they can tell at once whether they are Kanojia or Sanādhya, Maratha or Dravida. But the Brahmin of the seventh century A.D. always distinguished himself by his gotra and Sutra. In the Harsha Charita Bāṇa does not tell us whether he was a Kanojia or Magadha Brahmin but simply says that he was of the Vātsyāyana gotra. In all inscriptions and copperplate grants of that period we find nowhere Brahmins distinguished as Gauda or Dravida, but as belonging to a particular gotra and studying a perticular Sūtra. It is unnecessary to quote any instances here for the fact is so patent. Any grant or inscription referred to at random will show this. We must, however, refer to one grant because its words have been misunderstood. The Bulandshahar Gazetteer mentions the copper-plate grant found at Indore near Anupshahar as important in that "in it there is reference to the Gauda division of Brahmins." As the grant is dated in 164 G. E. or 465 A. D. it would follow that this division of Brahmins goes back to the 5th century A. D. or 150 years before the time of Bāṇa. But it seems the word गौरान्वय-संभूत in this grant has been misunderstood by the Gazetteer. For it must be remembered that the divisions Gauda, Dravida etc., are not based on family distinctions but on territorial or provincial distinctions and hence the word गौरान्वय-संभूत can have no reference to the distinctions now known as Gauda, Dravida and so on. Then again the word is Gorā and not Gauda. Of course the family name of Brahmins or what is now called the surname is rarely given in ancient epigraphic records, and this mention of the family is somewhat strange. But that there is no reference here to the provincial divisions of Brahmins is beyond question and we may believe that upto the end of the seventh century A. D. such distinctions had not arisen. Brahmins formed one caste throughout India and knew no distinctions except that of gotra and Charana or Śākhā. It is difficult to know if marriages took place then between Brahmins of different countries. But there is no reason why they should not have. Smritis do not prohibit such marriages. Even the present restriction of marriage within the same Śākhā is more a matter of custom than of Śāstric provision. For as a matter of fact marriages between Rigvedis and Yajurvedis do take place even at present among Maratha Brahmins, Kanojiyas and other subcastes. The mention of the Śākhā, therefore, in early epigraphic records does not import any divisions for prohibition of marriage. The Veda and Śākhā were perhaps important as indicating fitness for performing particular worship or religious service. The Atharvavedi Brahmins were, for instance, considered fit to perform the worship of the sun. It may be noted en passant that the words then used to indicate the Veda or Śākhā of a Brahmin were in some respects different from those now used. Bahvrieha was usually used then instead of Rigvedi and Chandoga instead of Sāmavedi; Yajurvedi being indicated by Vājasaneyi &c. And it may further be noted that Bhāradvāja-gotra was the usual expression then instead of Bharadvaja-gotra now used.

v1.c8.21

The second thing to remark about Brahmins is that their names generally ended in particular suffixes only. It appears that in those days particular suffixes or epithets were added to the names of individuals to indicate their caste. These suffixes are mentioned even in Smritis. Sarmā was the principal suffix indicating the Brahmin caste. Besides Sarmā the other suffixes or affixes were Bhatta, Deva and Svāmi.* In the Chammak copperplate grant of Pravarasena II of the Vākātakas of Berars (Corp. Ins. Vol. III p. 235 No. 88) we have many names of Brahmin grantees mentioned and the following are some of them viz. Śatyāyana Gaṇārya, Vātsya Devārya, Bhāradvāja Kumāraśarmārya, Pārāsarya Gāhasarma, Kāsyapa Devārya, Maheśvarārya Bhāradvāja Bappārya, Gautamasagotra Mātriśarmārya etc. The world Ārya is added as a double honorfic or it may indicate that the person came from the southern country where Ārya (modern Ayyā) was added invariably to Brahmin names by the Dravidian people.

v1.c8.22

As mentioned before Brahmins sometimes took up the suffixes Varmā and Gupta also to indicate that they followed the profession of warriors or traders. For the Brahmins in those days as now followed a diversity of professions besides their principal professions, namely, यजन and याजन, अध्ययन and अध्यापन i. e., sacrificing and officiating at sacrifices, learning and teaching. Bāṇa describes his uncles as learned men studying themselves and teaching others, performing great sacrifices, keeping Agnihotra and living a religious life appropriate to Gṛihastha Brahmins. And yet for himself Bāṇa describes his associates in his young days, as dancers and music teachers, actors and painters, poets and dramatists, servant girls and old women, goldsmiths and chemists, Hindu Sanyāsis and Buddhist recluses and other non-descript people. It is not impossible to suppose from the Mṛichhakatika where a Brahmin thief is introduced, that Brahmins were good and bad in those days as they are now and followed good and bad professions but the generality of them may be taken to have followed, then as now, either a religious life or the profession of Government servants, a profession in which they often rose to the position of governors of provinces. The Mandsaur-well-inscription No. 35 Corp. Ins. Ind. Vol. III gives an example of this kind. Abhayadatta, the son of Ravikīrti was a ‘Rājasthānīya and protected the region containing many countries (presided over by his own upright councillors), which lies between the Vindhya mountains from the summit of which there flow the waters of the Revā and the mountain Pāriyātra up to the ocean” p. 157. Similar instances might be quoted from other epigraphic records proving the frequency of such appointments in those days. And such governors eventually often became kings themselves.

v1.c8.23

∗ See the Śloka already quoted from Yama as also Manu II 30 and V. P. III. At the present day in Northern India the word Pandit is often prefixed to indicate that the person is a Brahmin from the Deccan or Kashmir. while Miśra would indicate a Behari or Bengali Brahmin. In the seventh century it does not appear that any differences of country were indicated by these suffixes. Grants from the Panjab and U. P. show that Bhatta was as favourite a suffix in these provinces as in Gujarat or Deccan. And Bāṇa is often called Bāṇa Bhatta though he came from Magadha. At present, however, this suffix is added or taken up only by Mahārāshtra Brahmins, while Ārya or Ayyā is affected by Telagu Brahmins, Āchārya by Karnatak Brahmins, Pandit by Kashmiri Brahmins and Misra by Behar Brahmins.

v1.c8.24

We will now pass on to the Kshatriyas and the first thing to remark is that they too formed then one caste only throughout India. As the ten subdivisions of Brahmins into five Gaudas, and five Dravidas had not yet arisen, the Kshatriyas too had not yet divided themselves into Rajputs and Khatris. In fact in modern times the word Khatri has come to denote a lower grade than the word Rajput. These Kshatriyas again had not yet been divided into 36 families only, considered to be of pure descent and restricting marriage to themselves alone. None of the names even of these 36 families had yet come into existence. The Chauhans and the Solankhis, the Sisodiyas and the Rathods had yet to be born and the Kshatriyas of India then formed one undivided caste without probably any restriction of marriage to particular families. Caste was, in fact, somewhat loose then as the Kshatriyas freely married Vaiśya wives from great families which had raised themselves to the kingly status. The instance of the Maukhari Grahavarmā marrying Harsha’s sister given by Bāṇa and that of the Valabhi king Dhruvabhata marrying Harsha’s daughter, mentioned by Hiuen Tsang will suffice to prove this practice. But such marriages were not common and the intermixture of castes or rather races was strictly prevented by pious Hindu kings as may be gathered from the epithet "Varnavyavasthāpanapara" usually applied in epigraphic records to great kings showing the earnest solicitude of the people to preserve the purity of Varna or race. Instances of pratiloma marriages, or marriages above the grade do not occur and hence the old law of the Manusmriti was apparently still in force. When therefore Hiuen Tsang says that a particular king was a Kshatriya, Vaiśya or Śūdra, he mentions a distinction which was strictly maintained inspite of the tendency of Buddhism to overthrow caste.

v1.c8.25

The next remark to make about the Kshatriyas is that they had not come to assign much importance to the three great Vanśas to which they now invariably trace their descent. For none of the epigraphic records of this time mention the Vanśa of the Kshatriya family. The Surya Vamśa, the Chandra Vamśa and the Agni Vamśa are yet not met with in grants and inscriptions. The Valabhi grants even do not mention that the Senāpati family to which the Sisodiyas, the premier Surya-Vamśi Rajputs of the present day trace their origin was of the Solar race. No doubt the Solar and Lunar races distinction rather the Aila and Aikshvāka race is mentioned in the Mahābhārata in the Sabhā Parva, where Krishna says that there were 101 families then in India belonging to the Solar and Lunar races. The idea thus of these two races must be taken to be at least as old as the 3rd century B. C. the undoubted date of the last edition of the Mahābhārata. But it seems probable that when in the interval between 300 B. C. and 600 A. D. various families of kings belonging to the Vaiśya and Śūdra castes and of foreign races ruled in India, the mention of the solar or lunar Vamśa must have become of less importance and hence the neglect to mention the Vamśa in inscriptions and grants. The grants of Valabhi kings of undoubted Kshatriya caste do not thus mention the race. But it does not follow that the Solar and Lunar lineage was forgotten. Some families did take pride even then in their Solar and Lunar race (H. C. p. 98 कथयतं यदि सोमवंशसंभवो सूर्यवंशसंभवो वा युवां भूपतिभूदेवंविशः). But they were apparently in the back-ground. The Pushyabhūti family of Thanesar belonged neither to the Solar nor Lunar race and the Vaiśya kings apparently did not deem the Vamśa important or could not trace the origin of their families to kings famous in the Purāṇas.* In grants of the Badāmi Chālukyas the gotra of the family is mentioned as Mānavya and the kings are also called Hārīti-putras. This Mānavya gotra is described in some grants as born of the first Svāyambhuva Manu and thus does not belong to the present solar race. How the two ancient lineages, namely, Solar and Lunar, grew later into importance and how the subsequent addition of the third Agni Kula was made hereafter, we shall have to discuss in our next volume.

v1.c8.26

Thirdly, the Kshatriyas had their peculiar descriptive epithets or name-endings like the Brahmins. Varmā and and Trātā mentioned in the Smṛitis were the chief ones. Other epithets may also be gathered from the records, such as Sena and Bhata. The Valabhi kings usually took up the suffixes Sena and Bhata. Sinha which was a most favourite epithet with post-Mahomedan Rajputs is not usually met with in records of the seventh century though we have the name Drona Sinha among the Valbhi kings.

v1.c8.27

We will now speak of the Vaiśyas whose caste was then and is still the third in rank. They are always treated as Aryan in race for the word Ārya occurring in the Vedas is always interpreted by the commentator Sāyaṇa as meaning Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaiśya. Vaiśyas, however, generally speaking had perhaps not preserved the purity of caste as much as the other two higher castes, and some of them had sunk into the position of Śūdras. But the Vaiśyas of the days of Hiuen Tsang, from his description were traders and merchants, bankers and money lenders and these might be taken to have formed themselves into a restricted group. The names of modern Vaiśya subcastes again had not yet come into being and Maheśris and Agarvals were then unknown. The modern Vaiśyas of Nothern India divide themselves into 12½ castes and are also separated by an unbridgable barrier from the Vaiśyas of the south. But in the seventh century probably like the Brahmin and the Kshatriyas they also still formed one caste only throughout India. Their distinctive appellations or suffixes were Gupta and Bhūti according to the Smritis already quoted and other words were also used such as Vardhana. And lasty as regards profession some of the Vaiśya families had raised themselves still higher than traders and merchants and become kings by following the profession of arms. Of these remarkable families, the Guptas of Magadha must be taken to be the premier family. The greatest king in India in its post Buddhist history next to Aśoka who was a Śudra was Samudra Gupta and he must be taken from the name ending to be a Vaiśya and similarly the greatest king next to Samudra Gupta after him was Harsha and he was undoubtedly a Vaiśya. The suffix Vardhana taken by his family indicated the Vaiśya caste and the testimony of Hiuen Tsang that Harsha was a Vaiśya is conclusive. Some Vaiśya families in those days therefore gave birth to heroes and statesmen and they were even distinguished by letters also as both Samudra Gupta and Harsha were certainly learned men. In mediæval and later history too, many Vaiśya families distinguished themselves on the battle-field and it seems that the modern Bais Rajputs of Oudh may be looked upon as the descendants of some of the heroic Vaiśya families of mediæval India though they derive their descent from the mythical Salivahana king of Paithan in the south. The Guptas were spread over the whole of Northern India and names of warriors and statesmen in those days usually ended in Gupta, showing their high qualification for military posts.

v1.c8.28

∗ In a Broach Gurjara grant the lineage is mentioned as that of Mahārāja Karṇa and antiquarians have interpreted Karṇa to mean Karṇa of the Mahābhārata. But I doubt it and as no grant contemporary or preceeding mentions the Vamśa this Karṇa was probably scme early famous king only of the Gurjara family.

v1.c8.29

Lastly we have to speak of the Śudras whose occupation, according to Hiuen Tsang was agriculture. In days preceding the Christian era, agriculture was the occupation of the Vaiśyas while menial service alone was left to the Śūdra caste. The spread of Buddhist sentiment witn its aversion to the taking of life must be held responsible for this change of occupation. The ploughing of land in which action worms and insects are inevitably killed was gradually looked upon as sinful and was eventually prohibited to the Dvijas: a prohibition which is even mentioned in Manu. These classes hence withdrew gradually from agriculture and left it in the hands of the Śūdras. In the Panjab and elsewhere, however, several communities did not mind this prohibition, and hence their sinking in public estimation to the rank of the Śūdras. As already described the Jats, the Gujars and the Marathas who are agriculturists, are thus, though Aryan in race, looked down upon as Śūdras. The original Dravidian population of the land became now the agriculturists of the country and of course formed the great Śūdra class. The lower population in Northern India and the west is thus, speaking generally, chiefly Dravidian with a large mixture of the Aryan race. In the south or the Madras Presidency the influx of the Aryan population in remote times was not considerable and there the agricultural population is wholly Dravidian.

v1.c8.30

Besides the agriculturists there were many classes whose profession was labour of varied kinds and these classes were probably of mixed origin. These are noticed by Hiuen Tsang as innumerable. Those who called themselves neither Brahmins nor Kshatriyas, neither Vaiśyas nor Śūdras were probably included by him in these mixed classes. "There are", he observes, "numerous classes formed by groups of people according to their kinds and these cannot be described." (Watters p. 168). Their number indeed, then as now, must have been counted by hundreds and hence Hiuen Tsang's despairing remark that they cannot be described. Mixed castes with special occupations have been described in several Smritis also and each division mentioned therein again divided itself probably into subdivisions according to minor diversity of occupation, and their number gradually increased. They were of course a mixture of the Dravidian and Aryan races, but the mixture must have taken place long before the time of which we write for marriages were now generally restricted to each class or caste as noticed above.

v1.c8.31

We cannot close this chapter without noticing the existence, even then, of the “untouchables,” or what are now called in the south the Panchamas or the fifth class. They are described by Hiuen Tsang as follows:— “Butchers, fishermen, public performers, executioners and scavengers have their habitations marked by a distinguishing sign. They are forced to live outside the city and they sneak along on the left when going about in the hamlets.” (Watters Vol 1 p. 147). The practice of compelling these untouchables to live outside the towns and villages must of course be traced back to even the Vedic times for the Brāhmaṇas speak of the Chāṇḍālas living beyond the skirts of towns and villages and of their habitations as not fit to be visited by the Aryans. The professions too of the Chāṇḍālas were from Vedic times much the same as above described with the exception of butchers and fishermen who perhaps were now added to the list of the untouchables in consequence of their profession of taking life, in response to the prevailing Buddhist sentiment. These depressed classes were probably composed of the lowest dregs of the Dravidian races having filthy habits and living on carrion. But in the Panjab and Rajputana a mixture of the Aryan race even among these was prominently discovered at the Census of 1901 when anthropometric meaurements were taken by Sir H. Risley. The Chamars and the Chaurahas of the Panjab are found to be distinctly Aryan in type and possibly these have been degraded solely in consequence of their profession in Buddhistic times before the period of which we are treating. Or, as the Smritis declare, the progeny of pratiloma marriages especially of Brahmin women with Śūdra husbands though they must have been rare must have joined the ranks of the Chāṇḍālas and thus infused Aryan blood even in their veins.

Note: Jats, Gujars and Marathas.

v1.c8.s1.2

The question whether Jats, Gujars and Marathas are Aryan or Seythian is strangely enough still being controverted. It admits, however, according to our view of one solution only viz., that they cannot but be Aryans. This view is based chiefly on anthropometrical considerations and it is also supported by history. It is indeed strange that even after the publication of Sir H. Risley's views based on anthropometric measurements taken at the Census of India in 1901 their origin should still be a matter of controversy. Those measurements clearly show that the noses of Jats and Gujars are distinctly fine and that their heads are long. It is sometimes argued by Sir H. Risley's opponents that noses might be made fine and heads may be lengthened by manupulation. But this argument cuts off the very ground from under the feet of the science of Anthropometry. If noses could be made fine very few people in India would have had flat noses, for fine noses are prized all over the country and even by the Dravidians. It is because noses and heads cannot be manupulated and have an ineradicable tendency to persist in different races, that anthropometry has any value as a science. We will, therefore, detail the anthropometrical argument first and then see whether history supports or contradicts the inferences derivable from it.

v1.c8.s1.3

The following remarks of Sir H. Risley in his Census Report for 1901 (p. 498) are pertinent in this connection. "The broad nose of the Negro or the Dravidian is his most striking feature. This broad type of the nose is most common in Madras, the Central Provinces and Chota Nagpore. Fine noses are confined to the Panjab and Rajputana, while the population of the rest of India tends to fall in the medium class. The pastoral Gujars of the Panjab have an index of 66·9, the Sikhs of 68·9 and the Bengal Brahmins and Kayasthas 70, while the average nasal proportions of the Māl Pahāria type are expressed by the figure 94·5. In other words the typical Dravidian as represented by the Māl Pahāria has a nose as broad in proportion to its length as the Negro; while this feature in the Indo-Aryan group can fairly bear comparison with the noses of 68 Parisians measured by Topinard which gave an average of 69·4."

v1.c8.s1.4

From this passage we clearly see that while the people of the Panjab and Rajputana are unquestionably Aryan by race, those of the Bombay Presidency including the Marathas, and of Bengal and the U.P. are distinctly so. And the Gujars of the Panjab stand first with regard to the fineness of the nose their index (66·9) being lower than that of even the Parisians. And yet the Gujars are looked upon by some as Scythians. The similarity of sound has often misled antiquarians into strange theories and the attempt to identify the Gujars with the Khizar is not less strange than the now generally abandoned identification of the Jats with the Gætæ. It is here that anthropometry and also history should step in to correct such wrong identification, That they do serve to dispel such misconception in the case of Jats and Gujars we have not the smallest doubt. The Jats are distinctly included by Sir H. Risley among the Indo-Aryans as their "type approaches most closely to that ascribed to the traditional Aryan colonists of India viz. heads long and noses narrow and prominent but not specially long." (Census R. 1901 p. 500.) Their stature is also tall, and their complexion is fair and as Nesfield has observed if appearance goes for anything, the Jats could not but be Aryans." The case of the Gujars also falls in the same category, They are men with finest noses in India and with long heads and tall statures. They are no doubt dark in complexion but complexion does not count much in the determination of race. "The most important points to be observed in the Indo-Aryan series of measurements are the great uniformity of type, and the very slight differences between the higher and lower groups." And this type is so persistent that the Jats and the Gujars wherever they are found present the same characteristics of head, nose and stature and even complexion. Under these circumstances ethnologically speaking the Jats and the Gujars are decidedly Aryan in race and similarity of sound in names ought not to mislead us into believing them to be descendants of the Gætæ or Khizars who were undoubtedly Mongolian in race.

v1.c8.s1.5

The Marathas present less distinctive characteristics, yet they must be classed among the Aryo-Dravidians and not as Scytho-Dravidian as Sir H. Risley strangely enough has done. Their heads are broad; but the head is not the determining factor in the assignment of race. The Mongols have indeed broad heads but some of the Aryan races too have broad heads such as the Celts. The Census Report for 1911 expresses a doubt as to the conclusion of Sir H. Risley that the Marathas are Scythians and adverts to the opinion of ethnologists that they are probably descendants of Alpine Aryans. (Haddon, Wanderings of people) The second race of Aryan invaders of India who principally settled in the U.P. and the Deccan appear to have been Aryans with broad heads. Otherwise it is impossible to explain the medium heads of the people of the U.P. who are looked upon by Sir H. Risley as Aryo-Dravidians. The Dravidians have long heads and if they mixed with the first race of Aryan invaders with long heads who are to be found in the Panjab and Rajputana the mixture of these races, both with long heads, cannot lead to medium heads. We have, therefore, perforce to hold that the second horde of Aryans who came into the U. P. and who mixed themselves with the Dravidian people there were Aryans with broad heads.

v1.c8.s1.6

The head, however, as we have said above and as has been observed by Sir H. Risley himself, is not the most distinctive sign of race. The feature most distinctive of race is the nose. The nose distinguishes the Aryan both from the Dravidian and the Mongolian types. The fine nose of the Aryan is distinct from the broad nose of the Dravidian and the flat nose of the Scythian. The flatness of the Scythian or Mongolian face strikes every observer as the root of the nose does not appreciably rise above the level of the eyes. To measure this rise the orbito-nasal index has been invented by anthropometrists and this index has been used, at Sir William Fowler's suggestion; especially where there is reason to suspect intermixture with the Mongolian type. (Census Report 1901 p. 497). To determine, therefore, if the Marathas have any Scythian or Mogolian blood in them we have to look to this index. Let us see what the indices are in this connection. The flat-faced Mongolians are called platyopic, their index being below 110 Those who have indices between 110 and 112.9 are called mesopic, while those whose index is 113 or above are called pro-opic. The last can have no mixture with Mongolian blood. Now all the members of the Indo-Aryan type are placed by their high averages in the pro-opic group (Census Report for 1901 page 602) and thus it is impossible that the Jats and the Gujars can have any Mongolian blood in them. The case of the Marathas apparently presents some difficulty. Their orbito-nasal index is medium, that is they are mesopic and hence it is difficult to decide whether they have Scythian blood in their veins. For this mesopic nature of their nose may as well be due to mixture with Dravidian blood.* Moreover Aryan characteristics do tend to assert themselves in the Marathas whenever their position unproves as may be observed by every careful observer. the nose getting finer and higher at the bridge. We have treated of this subject at greater length in our book "Epic India" and it is sufficient to further remark here that the Census Report for 1911 has given up the classification of Marathas by Sir H. Risley as Scytho-Dravidians and tends to treat them as Aryo-Dravidians i. e. born of mixture of a broad-headed Aryan type with the Dravidian type.

v1.c8.s1.7

Historial considerations, we will now go on to show, support the conclusions thus far set forth on anthropometrical grounds, especially with regard to the doubtful case of the Marathas. The materials for constructing the ancient history of the Marathas are ample and trustworthy. They have already been put together by noted scholars like Sir R. G. Bhandarkar and others. The foremost observation to make is the fact that the Aryans did enter into and settle in the Deccan long before the beginning of the Christain era, is universally accepted by all scholars. On the other hand, history tells us that the Śakas or Scythians invaded the Deccan in the first century A. D. and that their stay in the Deccan was limited to about 25 years only, being finally driven away by Sātavāhana Gautamī-putra of Paithana. If this is so how can the people of the Deccan be Scytho-Dravidian? How is it that the Aryans who settled in the province long before the Scythians came have left no trace of their blood in the population? That they settled here is a fact which can not be gainsaid. The history of this settlement of the Deccan by the Aryans is given by Sir R. Bhandarkar as follows: "The first and the oldest Aryan province in the southern country was Vidarbha or Berar. The Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata show that Vidarbha was inhabited when Daṇḍakāraṇya or Mahārāṣṭra proper was a forest". (Bhandarkar's History of the Deccan page 314.) It may be added that the people who settled in Vidarbha were called Bhoja, that Damayantī was the daughter of a Bhoja king and that Nala when showing, in the Mahābhārata, to Damayantī the way to her father's country, distinctly points to Berars.

v1.c8.s1.8

∗ In fact as the Dravidians are not pro-opic, their mixture with Scythians cannot lead to the Mesopic nature of the Maratha nose. If at all the Marathas should have been treated by Sir H. Risley as Scytho-Aryans. As already shown with regard to the head Sir H. Risley was misled with regard to the Marathas apparently owing to his prejudice against them. observable in his remarks about them in the Census Report (1901).

v1.c8.s1.9

The Aryans hereafter settled in the Daṇḍakāraṇya or Mahārāṣṭra proper the chief river of which is the Godavari. The original inhabitants being few, the language of the new settlers became the language of the people generally though in a corrupt or Prākrit form. As the country to the south of the Krishna was more populously inhabited by Dravidians, it became the boundary, so to speak, of the Aryan settlement as also of the Aryan language. Bands of settlers no doubt penetrated further south down to Cape Comorin and impressed their Aryan civilization and religion on the people but being few they could not impose their language upon them. On the contrary they adopted the language of the people there and even some of their customs. This in a nutshell is the account of the Aryan advance into the south. The Deccan being originally a forest and being settled principally by people of the Aryan race became Aryan in population and in speech while the portion to the south of the Krishna remained Dravidian in population and speech, a fact which squares in exactly with the ethnological aspect of the two parts of the southern peninsula.

First 39 of 58 passages. Read on

Linked texts (19)