Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c28: Book III.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c28

Language
English

Contents

Book III.

v2.c28.1

THE RAJPUTS.

v2.c28.2

With the beginning of the ninth century A. D., the face of Indian history completely changes. Aryan India and Aryo-Buddhistic India have ended and Hindu India, as it practically is at present, is presented to us. Buddhism has entirely disappeared from the land, except in a few isolated places like Magadha. While, in the map appended to the first volume of this history, the reader finds about three-fourths of India painted rose, being Aryo-Buddhistic, in the map appended to this volume, nearly the whole of India is painted soiled red, being Hindu. But if Buddhism has disappeared from the land, Vedic Aryanism too exists no more. The sentiment of aversion to animal sacrifice had been too deeply implanted in the Indian heart to allow the Pūrva Mīmānsā doctrine which supplanted Buddhism to remain long supreme. In fact Buddhism and Pūrva Mīmānsā, so to say, killed each other. While respect for the Vedas revived and gained strength, respect for Vedic sacrifices was gone. The doctrine of the efficacy of the Vedic sacrifices inculcated by the Pūrva Mīmānsā no doubt gained credence for a time after the death of Harsha about 650 A. D.; but by 750 A. D., the aversion to animal sacrifice had again asserted itself so strongly that Vedic animal sacrifices died again and died finally. Modern India with its Hinduism does not countenance these sacrifices.

v2.c28.3

and the Pūrva Mīmānsā doctrine is dead so far, along with Buddhism which it killed. The founders of the first set of Hindu kingdoms generally signalised their assumption of royal greatness by the performance of the Aśvamedha; the second set of Hindu kingly families which now began to establish themselves were indifferent to these sacrifices. The new kings were devout worshippers of the Puranic gods now enthroned supreme-viz., the five deities of modern Hinduism, Śiva, Viṣṇu, Sūrya, Devī, and Gaṇesha and chiefly of the first. The Śiva cult too of modern India is different from the same cult as it flourished in the previous period of Indian history. Its nature assumed a less revolting form and the offensive practices and the absurd doctrines which belonged to the Tāntric worship of Śiva of the days of Pushyabhūti, the founder of the Thanesar dynasty, were no more in vogue or obtained popular favour. Thus, religiously considered, modern Hindu India practically commences from about the beginning of the ninth century of the Christian era.

v2.c28.4

One most prominent feature of this Hinduism, a feature which subsists to-day in all its strength, is the strengthened belief in the sacredness of the cow and the bull. The cow has been sacred indeed from Vedic times; but Vedic ritual included the sacrifice of cows and bulls. The now strongly entrenched sentiment of Ahimsā, made the slaughter of cows and bulls even for Vedic sacrifices one of the five most heinous sins and even the maiming of cows came to be looked upon as sinful. Both Śiva and Viṣṇu worships which were now enthroned supreme contributed to this strong belief in the sacredness of the bovine animal. The bull was sacred to Śiva and the cow to Viṣṇu in his highest incarnation as Śrī Kṛiṣhṇa. That great root cause of the terrible conflicts between Hindus and Mahomedans acquired its supreme influence at this time, an influence which subsists to-day in all its strength. In all Hindu States the killing or maiming of cows and bulls is even to-day a heinous crime under the Penal Code.

v2.c28.5

Socially also, modern Hindu India can be traced back to the beginning of the ninth century A. D. Caste was till then not so exclusive as it is at this day, nor had castes sub-divided themselves into minor ramifications. The final overthrow of Buddhism and the inclusion of people who had previously professed that faith in the Hindu society probably led to the formation of sub-castes in the next sub-period within the main castes and though the modern sub-castes can not be traced back to the ninth century or rather the second sub-period of Mediæval Hindu India, the origin of it and its probable cause may be traced to that sub-period, viz., the difference of local tendencies due to the conversion of Buddhists into Hindus worshipping Puranic deities. The food of the people again generally became vegetarian and the accentuation of this fact contributed its share to the formation of more sub-castes within castes in the next period.

v2.c28.6

What is more remarkable still is that the language of the people too changed markedly from this time. The modern vernaculars of India arose about this time for reasons which we shall try to elucidate in a separate chapter. It is sufficient here to state that the history of the modern vernaculars of India can be traced back continuously to this period and not beyond it; and hence it may be said, speaking historically, that the modern languages of India began to be formed about thist time. While in previous centuries the ancient Prākṛits Śaurasenī, Māgadhī, Mahārāshtrī and Paiśāchī or their Apabhraṇśas appear to have still been spoken, from the ninth century onward we find Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, Gujarati and Panjabi appearing as new developed spoken languages of north, east, south and west India.

v2.c28.7

But the greatest phenomenon of this period was the rising into political prominence of new kingly families—families which subsist as kingly families down to this day. It may in fact be said that modern political Hindu India as it is to-day also commences from this period. This phenomenon is marked by Indian historians and Sir V. Smith among them properly observes that the Rajputs about this time enter upon the stage of Indian history. The former kingly families are gone. The Guptas and the Vardhanas who were probably Vaiśyas were the leading kingly families of India during the Aryo-Buddhistic period and there were foreign kingly families also such as the Yavanas, the Śakas and the Hūṇas. These gradually disappeared in the first sub-period of Mediæval Hindu India. There were some Kshatriya families then also who are described as Kshatriyas even by Hiuen-Tsang, but these did not call themselves Rajputs and the Maitrakas of Valabhī or the Varmas of Kanauj in the north and the Chālukyas of Badāmi and the Pallavas of Kāñchī in the south are styled Kshatriyas but not Rajputs. These too disappeared about this time and new Kshatriya families arose all over India at this time which delighted to call themselves Rajputs, not a new name, however. And the wonder is that these Rajput kingly families subsist, though with diminished importance, as kingly families to this day. Indeed there are no other kingly families at this date in the whole world which can trace their pedigree back in a continuous line to the 9th century A. D. For this reason alone if not for anything else, the Rajputs of India deserve a prominence peculiarly their own.

v2.c28.8

But the Rajputs deserve much greater renown than this. In fact their greatness as a chilvalrous and valiant people has not adequately been realised by us. They shed a glory on the history of this time which deserves as great a record in the history of the world as the glory of the most heroic peoples in that history. The Śisodias of Mewad and the Chāhamānas of Sāmbar deserve the foremost mention in world's history for chivalry and heroism, for the orthodoxy of their faith and for the persistence of their struggle against a foreign faith and dominion. In fact, the flood of Arab conquest which westward inundated the north of Africa and pouring even over the straits of Gibraltar rushed into Spain and crossed the Pyrenees into France was only dashed to pieces against the rock of the valour of the Franks on the banks of the Loire. The flood of the same Arab conquest led by the same fanaticism of a new religion, which rushed eastward and engulfed Mesopotamia, Iran, and Baluchistan and crossing the Indus submerged Sind in India received its shattering at the hands of the heroic Gehlots. Had it not been for Bappa Rāwal who justly deserves the veneration in which his name is held by the Rajputs and who can fitly be styled the Charles Martel of India, the whole of India would have fallen before the Arabs and to use the eloquent words of Gibbon, professors of the Arabian faith might to-day have preached to a circumcised population in the city of Benares. But this fate was averted by the heroism of Bappa Rawal and his Rajputs and it is refreshing to observe that his descendants throughout their long and glorious history down to this day have always upheld the banner of independence and of Hinduism against the Mahomedan conquerors. The last upholder of Svadharma and Svarājya in Indian history was a descendant of this hero viz., Sivaji who fought with the Mahomedans in the Deccan and re-established the independence and the religion of the Marathas.

v2.c28.9

There is, however, one great difference between the Aryans of the west and the Aryans of the east. The Spaniards remained in a deadly grip of fight for a thousand years nearly with the Moors on the banks of the Tagus in Spain when suddenly the Moors lost in strength and were immediately overthrown by the Spaniards and driven out of Europe. In India the Arabs followed by the Turks remained similarly grappled in conflict for about five hundred years, near about the Indus, with the Rajputs, the Indo-Aryans. In this tug-of-war, however, the Rajputs eventually gave way and were overthrown by the Turks and the Afghans about the end of the third period of our history. Though the Rajputs preserved their independence and their honour, their religion and their valour in the sands and hills of Rajputana, India as a whole lay prostrate at the feet of the Mahomedan conquerers. The Mahomedans were not only not beaten back out of India as in Spain but they eventually engulfed the whole of this country. Why unlike their Aryan brethren of the West, the Rajputs of India failed is a question which the historian of Mediæval Hindu India has to answer and we shall try to do so in the volumes which are now before us.

v2.c28.10

Who are these Rajputs who arose at this time and for five hundred years at the least beat back the Mahomedan onslaughts and whence did they come? We have already said that they were Indo-Aryans, the most chivalrous representatives of the Vedic Aryans of India. They defended their ancient faith with heroism and may well be called the defenders of the Hindu faith.

v2.c28.11

Were they new proselytes to Hinduism from the ranks of foreigners, the remnants of Huns and Śakas, of Yue-chi and Getae as many European and native antiquarian researchers think? We propose to discuss this subject at great length in this book as in spite of the verdict of anthropometry that the facial characteristics of the Rajputs show them to be true Aryans, noted historians like Sir V. Smith still adhere to the theory that the Rajputs are the descendants of foreign peoples who invaded India about the sixth century A. D.

v2.c28.12

THEORY OF FOREIGN DESCENT.

v2.c28.13

The Rajputs who now came to the front and who by their heroism diffuse such glory on this period of Mediæval Indian History can not but have been descendants of Vedic Aryans. None but Vedic Aryans could have fought so valiantly in defence of their ancestral faith. It is true that converts sometimes exhibit more virulence and more violence in the defence of their adopted religion but this is more by way of exception than the rule. It is, therefore, natural to infer that these Rajputs were the descendants of Vedic Aryans. Their own traditions also declare that they belonged to the well-known Solar and Lunar races of Kshatriyas, or as we have elsewhere interpreted the terms, that they were the descendants of the two hordes of Aryan invaders who in pre-historic times entered India by way of the Panjab and the Gangetic valley. Thirdly, anthropometric measurements taken at the time of the census of 1901 fully substantiate the claim of the Rajputs to Aryan descent. Their straight noses, their long heads and their tall statures unmistakably show them to be Aryans, as these characteristics of Aryan races have been marked all over the world. And many European observers like Nesfield and Ibbetson have no doubt whatever about the truth of this claim of the Rajputs to be treated as Aryans, as descendants of those ancient Kshatriyas who settled in India in Vedic times.

v2.c28.14

But inspite of ethnology, of tradition and of probabilities, other European historians and scholars and many Indian antiquarians believe and maintain that the Rajputs who now began to figure on the stage of Indian history were the descendants of foreign barbarian races. Tod the famous historian of the Rajputs no doubt started this theory but in his days historical research and the science of anthropometry were in their infancy, the Roman world, and the most important events of the reign of Antoninus Pius, are related by his biographer, and the reader will not be sorry to find them here in a more concise form. The reign of Antoninus Pius is marked by the rare advantage of furnishing very few materials for history; which is only another mode of saying that its happiness was complete. During the twenty-three years of his administration, the Roman empire was governed by the same invariable maxims of justice and peace. The natives of a vast extent of country were protected by the same laws, and enjoyed the same privileges. The frontiers were defended by the same legions, and the same spirit of moderation and equity prevailed in the councils of the emperor. The death of Antoninus was lamented as a public calamity; and the memory of his virtues was preserved by the gratitude of his subjects, and the imitation of his successor.

v2.c28.15

The reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, which followed, was a period of great activity and of great events. The empire was attacked on all sides by the barbarians, and the emperor was obliged to spend the greater part of his life in the camp. He was a man of a mild and philosophical temper, and he would have preferred the quiet of the study to the tumult of the field. But he was a prince of a high sense of duty, and he did not shrink from the task which was imposed upon him. He defended the frontiers with vigour, and he defeated the enemies of Rome in many a hard-fought battle. His death was a loss to the empire, and it was felt by all classes of his subjects. He was the last of the good emperors, and with him the golden age of the Roman empire may be said to have terminated.

v2.c28.16

The character of the Roman government, under the Antonines, was that of a mild and paternal despotism. The emperor was the source of all power, and his will was the law of the land. But he was restrained by the influence of the senate, and by the force of public opinion. The senate was still a body of great dignity and importance, and its members were the principal officers of the state. The emperor was careful to consult them on all matters of importance, and he was always ready to listen to their advice. The public opinion was also a powerful check upon the actions of the emperor. The people of Rome were still a proud and independent race, and they were not afraid to express their dissatisfaction with the measures of the government. The emperor was aware of this, and he was always careful to avoid any act that would be likely to give offence to the people.

v2.c28.17

The administration of justice was one of the most important duties of the emperor. He was the supreme judge of the empire, and he was always ready to hear the complaints of his subjects. He was assisted by a council of jurists, who were the most learned men of the age. The laws were administered with impartiality, and the rights of the citizens were protected. The taxes were moderate, and they were collected with fairness. The public works were carried on with vigour, and the cities of the empire were adorned with magnificent buildings. The trade and commerce of the empire were encouraged, and the people were prosperous and happy. The Roman empire, under the Antonines, was a model of good government, and it was the envy of the world.

v2.c28.18

least. That they are a virile and a chivalrous people cannot be denied and their importance does not diminish by the supposed *descent* in their ancestry. But we are really concerned here with history, with the question whether this view of the origin of the Rajputs is historically correct. This view is supported if not originated by some Indian researchers like Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar and naturally enough is also accepted by the last *erudite* editor of Tod's *Annals of Rajasthan*. Mr. William Crooke who has just edited this famous history with notes based on up-to-date research thus observes in his introduction: "Recent research has thrown much light on the origin of Rajputs. A wide gulf lies between the Vedic Kshatriyas and the Rajputs of mediæval times which it is now impossible to bridge. It is now certain that the origin of many clans dates from the Saka or Kushān invasions or more certainly from that of the White Huns who destroyed the Gupta empire about 480 A. D. The Gurjar tribe connected with the latter people adopted Hinduism and their leaders formed the main stock from which the higher Rajput families sprang. When these new claimants to princely honour accepted the faith and the institutions of Brahmanism the attempt would naturally be made to connect them with the heroes of the Mahābhārata and the Rāmāyaṇa. Hence arose the body of legend recorded in these annals by which a fabulous origin from the sun and the moon was ascribed to these Rajput families" (P. XXXI). Mr. Crooke further on remarks "The group denoted by the name Kshatriya or Rajput depended on status rather than on descent and it was therefore possible for foreigners to be introduced into these tribes without any violation of the prejudices of caste, which was then only partially developed. But it was necessary to disguise this admission of foreigners under a convenient fiction. Hence arose the legend how by a solemn act of purification or initiation under the superintendence of the ancient Vedic Rishis, the *fire-born* septs were created to help the Brahmins in repressing Buddhism and other heresies. This privilege was confined to four septs known as Agnikula or fire-born—viz., the Paramār, Parihār, Chālukya and Chanhān." This long extract would also show how the latest English researchers do not believe in the generally accepted view of the Rajputs that they are the representatives of Vedic Kshatriyas and it also shows how the now generally accepted legend about Agnikula Rajput families is twisted into a support for the theory of foreign descent started by western scholars and antiquarians.

v2.c28.19

We have tried in our first volume to refute many of these arguments. We have shown in that volume how Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar’s theory that the Gujars are foreigners (Khizars) who came along with the Huns in the beginning of the fifth century is baseless, inasmuch as it is admitted by even Smith that there is no historical evidence either of native tradition or foreign record to suggest, much less to prove that the Gujars came into India from outside about this time and further because we find that the history of the Khizars proves that they never left their own country. We also showed that the characters of the two people are diametrically opposed. While the Khizars are stationary in habits and traders by profession, the Gujars are of roving habits and cattle-grazers by profession. It was also shown that the Gujars of India are distinctly Aryan by features, that their noses are more prominent than the noses of even Parisans, that in short the whole theory based on the premiss that Gujars are foreigners is mistaken for the Gujars are not foreigners and Scythians but are distinctly Aryans. We will, therefore, not repeat in this volume what we have urged already in refutation of this theory. We have also shown that foreigners like the Huns and the Śakas could not have left many descendants behind, that ruling races generally disappear when their rule is gone. We will, however, address ourselves in this volume to the second part of Mr. Bhandarkar’s theory accepted by Sir Vincent Smith and Mr. William Crooke that it is established on good evidence that the Rajputs are the descendants of Gujars. In fact we may say that while we have refuted the second premiss of Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar’s argument in our first volume, we will in this volume try to refute his first premiss. For Dr. Bhandarkar’s argument may be stated thus: "1st The Rajputs are the descendants of Gujars; 2nd the Gujars are foreigners. Therefore, 3rd the Rajputs are the descendants of foreigners." We have already shown that the Gujars are not foreigners but are true Aryans; and hence even if the Rajputs are descendants of Gujars they cannot be classed as Non-Aryans. But we go further and will prove in this volume that the Rajputs are not descended from Gujars but from Kshatriyas who may well be believed to be the representatives of the Vedic Kshatriyas. Dr. Bhandarkar’s theory has been elucidated principally in his papers on the Gujars (J. Bom. R. A. S. 1903) and on Foreign Elements in the Indian Population (Ind. Ant. 1911). Many of his arguments advanced in these papers have been accepted by historians like Smith and Crooke from whom we have quoted above at length. These arguments have always derived a strong support from the tradition relating to the Agnikulas current among the Rajputs themselves. It is here that we see the immense value of research. For research has already established that this tradition or myth of Agnikulas is indeed a myth, a creation and a modern creation of a poet’s brain; and we see here how false traditions once set up by poets and accepted in popular belief not only delude the people themselves but even historians like Smith and Crooke and researchers like Bhandarkar and Johnson. Indeed one can demonstrate the value and usefulness of historical research by the example of this very baseless myth of fire-born races which has so strongly supported the theory of the foreign descent of the Rajputs.

v2.c28.20

THE EXPLODED MYTH OF AGNIKULAS.

v2.c28.21

Gibbon, in explaining the doctrine of Transubstantiation, remarks truly that in popular belief what is originally rhetoric becomes subsequently logic. Most popular traditions arise in this way in poetical fancies which are eventually accepted as undeniable truths. No sane man believes that human races could have sprung from the sun or the moon. Such beliefs are certainly absurd, but the tradition of solar and lunar origins of Indo-Aryan races is of very ancient date and even goes back to the Rigveda. This tradition, therefore, absurd as it is, has a historical importance and we have already elsewhere noted the inference derivable from this tradition viz., that the Indo-Aryans must have come into India in two different hordes, an inference first suggested by Sir R. Grierson on linguistic grounds. The traditions similarly of the origins of different Rajput clans have some historical importance if they are of long standing and unvarying character. The tradition about the origin of Agnikulas might thus have been of use historically and might have supported the theory of foreign peoples being incorporated into Hindu society, if it had not been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that it originated in a poet's brain, nay it may be shown further that it is based on a misconception of that poet and is finally of quite recent date. Research has amply shown this but unfortunately western scholars have not sufficiently recognised the fact and drawn the necessary inference from it.

v2.c28.22

As is generally known, this story of four warrior clans having been created out of fire by Vashishtha was first told by Chand the bard of Prithviraj in his epic the Prithviraj Rasa on the exploits of this last chivalrous Rajput king. The story shortly is that when this world was oppressed by Rakshasas or Mlechchas, Vasiṣṭha created from his sacrificial fire four warriors in succession viz., first the Paramāra, then the Chālukya, then the Parihāra and when these could not destroy the Rākṣasas, the terrible Chāhomāna from whom the poet's hero Pṛthvīrāja was decended. This story along with the Rāsā became by and by extremely popular and was eventually accepted by all Rajputs and what is strange by the descendants of these four clans themselves. Naturally the great historian of the Rajputs Col. Tod accepted it and incorporated it in his history. These four clans, it is now currently believed, cannot trace their pedigree to the sun or the moon as the other Kṣatriyas do, but are fire-born thus giving colour to the theory that these clans are really foreigners who have been transformed into Kṣatriyas by the Brahmins by a fiction of purification by fire.

v2.c28.23

Now it will be a revelation to many to know that this story is not only a poet's fancy but further arises from a misconception of even that fancy. For as a matter of fact it seems that even Chand himself did not wish to represent that these Kṣatriyas were *newly created* Kṣatriyas. For epigraphic evidence unequivocally proves that these four or at least three of these, in the ninth century A. D., represented themselves as and were believed to be descended from the solar and lunar Vamśas. Thus the Pratihāra clan which established its empire at Kanauj which Dr. Bhandarkar and others strive to show to be Gujar in origin and therefore foreign is distinctly said in a stone inscription of the 10th century to belong to the solar line. This Gwalior Bhoja inscription is very important in this connection and states that the imperial Pratihāras of Kanuaj were descended from Lakṣmaṇa brother of Rāma, the hero of the solar race, Lakṣmaṇa being Rama's Pratihāra or door-keeper. As already stated we attach no value to such traditions except in so far as they represent the beliefs current at particular times. This tradition proves that the Pratihāra clan was in the ninth century treated as solar in race. How can Chand then in the 12th century represent these Pratihāras as Agnikulas? Similarly the Chāhamānas are also said in records previous to Chand's Pṛthvīrāj Rāsā distinctly to belong to the same solar line. The Harsha stone inscription (Ep. Ind. II. p. 119) gives the line of the Chāhamānas from one Gūvaka and to our mind clearly conveys that this clan is solar in descent. (तन्मुक्त्यर्थमुपागता रघुकुले भूचक्रवर्ती स्वयम्.) Mr. Harbilasa Sarda of Ajmere has, in his paper in R. A. S. 1903 on Pṛithvīrāj Vijaya—a poem by a contemporary poet in the Darbar of Pṛithvīrāj himself, shown that the poem describes Pṛithvīrāj as born of the solar line. Hammīra Mahākāvya again declares that the Chāhamānas were descended from the sun, as also a stone inscription in the Ajmere Museum. It is, therefore, certain that from the ninth century down even to the thirteenth and the fourteenth, the Chāhamānas were considered to belong to the solar line of Kshatriyas. The third clan Solankhī or Chālukya of Anahillapāṭaṇ is, in epigraphic records described as belonging to the lunar line. It must be remembered that the Chālukyas of Badāmī were different from these. Here it is sufficient to state that these Chālukyas belong to the Bhāradvāja gotra and are so described even in the Pṛithvīrāj Rāsā. Now this gotra of these Chālukyas is given in an inscription of the Haihayas of Chedi. The Bilhari stone inscription (Ep. Ind. I. p. 253-9) states that Keyūravarsha Haihaya married Nohalādevī, daughter of Avanivarman Chālukya of the Bhāradvāja gotra. This inscription which has been assigned to the beginning of the 11th century A. D. gives a different version about the origin of these Chālukyas from that of the southern Chālukyas given by Bilhaṇa as also by Eastern Chālukya kings and states that the first ancestor of these Chālukyas was created out of the water in his handful by Droṇa Bhāradvāja for killing Drupada, and hence belonged to his gotra. As Bhāradvāja belonged to the lunar line, the Chālukyas of Bhāradvāja gotra also belonged to the same line. Now since in this inscription, the Chālukyas were believed to belong to the lunar line and were also believed to be created by Droṇa, how can Chand in the 12th century represent these same Chālukyas as created by Vaśiṣṭha from his fire?

v2.c28.24

These three clans, it is now admitted by researchers (see introduction by Mr. Crooke himself to Tod's Rajastan page XXXI) do not belong to the Agnikula creation origin, but the necessary inference from this is not drawn by them. If the Chāhamānas and the Prātihāras, the two most important clans who were supposed to be Gujars transformed into Kshatriyas by purification, are proved to be no longer Agnikulas but on the contrary were believed to be solar in descent in the 9th and 10th centuries, does not the whole theory of foreign descent fall to the ground? But this is not all. Even the fourth, the Paramāras are not Agnikulas as represented by Chand. In fact stone inscription records of these Paramāras from the 12th century though giving the origin of the Paramāras from the fire of Vasiṣṭha, do not give the story of the Rāsā, but an entirely different story. Vasiṣṭha is said therein to have created the first Paramāra to chastise Viśvāmitra who was taking away the divine cow belonging to the former. The Udepur Praśasti for instance (Ep. Ind I.) gives this story and states that the gotra of the Paramāras is consequently Vasiṣṭha. This gotra is still claimed by the Paramāras all over India and is also given by Chand.

v2.c28.25

How can then the story given by Chand in the Rāsā be taken to be a correct representation of the traditions prevailing in his time and in earlier centuries about the lineage of Pratihāras and Chāhamānas, of Chālukyas and Paramāras, and recorded even in contemporaneous poems? The only explanation is that either the Pṛthvīrāja Rāsā is a forgery, a later work produced in Mahomedan times when inscriptions had been forgotten, or that the story as given by Chand in his poem is misinterpreted. The authenticity of the Rāsā as a poem written by a contemporary poet is questioned by Shyamaldas Pandya. Our views on the subject will be given in a note as it is not necessary to discuss this subject here at length. For one can see and say that the Rāsā merely gives here a poetical imaginary story which has subsequently been taken to be a real story. These four races, we know, came to the front by their fights with the Mlechhas and hence have been brought together in this story. But it seems that the story even as given by Chand is misinterpreted and it appears that Chand did not intend here to set forth a third lineage for Kshatriyas viz., the fire in addition to the two well-known Puranic lineages the solar and the lunar. This is clear from the fact that Chand mentions only three lineages (1) the solar (2) the lunar and (3) the Yādava for the famous thirty-six royal families enumerated by him. He does not give the Agnikula lineage at all but assigns the four supposed Agnikula clans the Parihāra, the Paramāra, the Chāhamāna and the Chālukya under the old two or three lineages. The enumeration of the 36 Rajput families in the Rāsā begins thus रवि ससि जाधवं वंस । ककुत्स्थ परमार सदावर । चाहुआन चालुक, । छंदक सिलार आभियर ॥ Here it is clear that he puts the three Paramāra, Chāhamāna and Chālukya under the three old recognised Vamśas, the solar, the lunar and the Yādava. We think Chand's story has entirely been misconstrued. In describing the four warriors, Paramāra, Pratihāra, Chālukya, and Chāhamāna as coming out of fire at the call of Vasiṣṭha, he did not intend to convey that these warriors were heroes newly created by Vasiṣṭha. He simply wanted to convey that four warriors out of the already existing clans came out of the fire at Vasiṣṭha's bid to fight the Rākṣasas.

v2.c28.26

This story of Chand being so misinterpreted gained popular credence from the 16th century A. D. along with his now generally accepted Epic so much so that these four clans forgot that their ancestors in their historical records on stone represented themselves nowhere as Agnikulas but as solar and lunar race Kshatriyas. And their bards too forgot the fact so completely that a new Chand viz., Surajmal Bhata of Bundikota wrote another Hindi epic poem in glorification of his patron's family the Chāhamāna clan in which he completed the mischief caused by this misinterpretation of Chand, by assigning five Vamśas for the Kshatriyas. In this Vamśa-Bhāskara by Sūrajamal of Boondi we find the story of the Yajnakunda of Vasiṣṭha given with greater detail, nay with the exact date when the first Chāhamāna warrior was created from the fire (the date comes to about 6632 B. C. being 3531 years before Kali began) and the following verse gives the five Kshatriya Vamśas which now for the first time were enumerated as भुजभव, मनुभव, अर्कभव, ससिभव, छत्र वंश । है चउतिम, श्चैवंवंस हुव पंचम प्रथितशंस. The Hādās of Boondi-Kotā accepted the new Vamśa assigned to them by their poet and thus the myth of Agni-Vamśa which at the earliest commenced in about 1200 A. D. became a logical fact in about 1700 A. D. when the four clans themselves accepted a new Vamśa for themselves. Col. Tod could not but believe in this tradition and he set his final seal upon it by his well-known history of the Rajputs.

v2.c28.27

Such is in short the story of this Agnikula myth, a story begun in a poet's brain and being misconstrued by another poet finally commanding acceptance even from the deluded Rajputs themselves. The value of historical research cannot be illustrated more vividly than in the exploding of this myth from stone and copper records of these clans themselves. And we now clearly see that no such story was really put forth by Chand and that these four clans* represented themselves as and were believed to be solar or lunar by race in the 9th to the 13th century A. D. The theory of the foreign descent of these Rajput clans loses, therefore, its strongest support viz., the myth of purification by fire; though it may still be contended by the propounders of this theory that these clans might as well have affiliated themselves to the solar or lunar race, as they are known to be Gujars from various records. We have, therefore, to examine the question whether there is any argument to prove that these clans of Rajputs are Gujars by descent.

v2.c28.28

∗ Even the Paramāras seem to be treated as solar race Kshatriyas, for the Paramāras among the Marāthas who have the same Vasisṭha gotra are treated as Solar-race Kshatriyas in their Vamśāvalis

v2.c28.29

The first of these, the *Gospel of the Hebrews*, was used by the Jewish Christians of Palestine, and was probably a version of the Gospel of Matthew, though it contained some traditions not found in our canonical books. The *Gospel of the Egyptians* was used by the ascetic sects of Egypt, and was marked by a strong tendency towards mysticism and asceticism. The *Gospel of Peter* was used by the Docetists, and taught that Christ did not really suffer, but only appeared to do so.

v2.c28.30

These gospels, and others like them, were not accepted by the Church as a whole, and were gradually lost or suppressed. The Church, however, felt the need for a standard collection of writings that would serve as a guide for faith and practice. This led to the formation of the New Testament canon, a process that took several centuries to complete.

v2.c28.31

The first step in this process was the collection of the letters of Paul, which were widely circulated among the churches. Then came the four Gospels, which were accepted as the authoritative accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles and the other epistles were gradually added, and finally the Book of Revelation.

v2.c28.32

By the end of the second century, the core of the New Testament was generally accepted by the Church. The process of canonization was not a formal act of a council, but rather a gradual recognition by the churches of the writings that were most valuable for their life and worship. It was only in the fourth century that the canon was formally closed by the councils of the Church.

v2.c28.33

The formation of the New Testament canon was a crucial event in the history of the Church. It provided a standard of faith and practice that helped to unify the Church and to protect it from the influence of heretical sects. It also ensured that the teachings of Jesus and the apostles would be preserved for future generations.

v2.c28.34

the *basileia* is not a static entity, but a dynamic power, a *dynamis* (Mark 9:1), which is already at work in the world. It is the "reign" of God, the active exercise of His sovereignty, which has broken into history in the person and ministry of Jesus.

v2.c28.35

This interpretation is supported by the fact that the *basileia* is often spoken of as something that can be "entered" (Mark 10:15, 23-25; Matt. 5:20; 7:21; 18:3; 23:13; John 3:5), "received" (Mark 10:15), or "inherited" (Matt. 25:34). These verbs imply that the *basileia* is a realm or a state of being into which one can pass, or a gift that can be accepted. It is not merely a future event, but a present reality that demands a response.

v2.c28.36

Furthermore, the parables of the kingdom (e.g., the Sower, the Mustard Seed, the Leaven) emphasize the growth and the hidden, yet transformative, power of the *basileia*. It starts small and seemingly insignificant, but it possesses an inherent vitality that will inevitably lead to a great harvest. This suggests that the kingdom is not something that is imposed from without, but something that grows from within the world, transforming it from the inside out.

v2.c28.37

In conclusion, the *basileia* of God is both present and future, both a gift and a task. It is the sovereign rule of God, which has been inaugurated in Jesus and which continues to work in the world through the power of the Spirit. It is a reality that demands our total allegiance and our active participation in its mission.

v2.c28.38

The first of these, the *Gospel of the Hebrews*, was used by the Jewish Christians of Palestine, and was probably a version of the Gospel of Matthew, though it contained some traditions not found in our canonical books. The *Gospel of the Egyptians* was used by the ascetic sects of Egypt, and was marked by a strong tendency towards mysticism and asceticism. The *Gospel of Peter* was used by the Docetists, and taught that Christ did not really suffer, but only appeared to do so.

v2.c28.39

These gospels, and others like them, were not accepted by the Church as a whole, and were gradually lost or suppressed. The Church, however, felt the need for a standard collection of writings that would serve as a guide for faith and practice. This led to the formation of the New Testament canon, a process that took several centuries to complete.

v2.c28.40

The first step in this process was the collection of the letters of Paul, which were widely circulated among the churches. Then came the four Gospels, which were accepted as the authoritative accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles and the other epistles were gradually added, and finally the Book of Revelation.

v2.c28.41

By the end of the second century, the core of the New Testament was generally accepted by the Church. The process of canonization was not a formal act of a council, but rather a gradual recognition by the churches of the writings that were most valuable for their life and worship. It was only in the fourth century that the canon was formally closed by the councils of the Church.

v2.c28.42

The formation of the New Testament canon was a crucial event in the history of the Church. It provided a standard of faith and practice that helped to unify the Church and to protect it from the influence of heretical sects. It also ensured that the teachings of Jesus and the apostles would be preserved for future generations.

v2.c28.43

tion of Nanda by 1015 years. ( यावतपरीक्षितो जन्म यावनन्दाभिषेचनम् । एतद्वर्षसहस्रं तु ज्ञेयं पञ्चदशोत्तरम् ). It is probably this verse from the Bhāgavata which Chand has in his mind when he introduces Nanda in the first verse and Dharmasuta or Yudhishthira in the second. But it is still difficult to explain how Chand places 1115 years between Vikrama and Dharmasuta and in what manner he forms his third Śaka of Prithvīrāja. It seems that लिख्यो विप्र गुन गुस means that the Brahmin poet has written this in a riddle after making calculations and that there is no reference here to Brahmagupta the astronomer.

v2.c28.44

The view that Prithvīrāja Rāsā must have a nucleus by Chand himself and that it is not wholly a fabrication of the 17th century is strongly supported by the list of the 36 Royal Kshatriya families which is given by the Rāsā and which cannot be so late as the 17th century. The verse सोरोसे सतोत्तरे विक्रमसाक बदीत । दिल्लीधर चितोडपे लेवंगा बलजीत ।। indeed records a prophecy that the Delhi Mahomedan emperor will take Chitod again in Samvat 1677 and may make this verse of the Rāsā an interpolation of the 17th century A. D. (Even in this the Rāsā resembles the Mahābhārata wherein as shown by us in Mahābhārata Mīmānsā there is a prophetic reference to Udayana). But that does not make the whole poem spurious and of so late a date. We will discuss the list of 36 Royal families in the next note and show that it cannot be of a date later than that of Prithvīrāja. The question whether Samarasi was a contemporary of Prithvīrāja or not we do not mean to discuss here as we shall have to discuss it in our third volume. Unfortunately we have not come across the explanation which Mohanlal Pandya has offered on this point and which he has reserved in his note on this subject (Vol. I page 145) in the Rāsā.

v2.c28.45

∗ If it were possible to make a guess, Nanda may stand for 91 which perhaps was the period of the reign of the nine Nandas and not 100 as stated in Purāṇas.

The 36 Royal Clans or Rajput Families.

v2.c28.s1.1

It seems certain that from ancient times the Rajputs consider themselves as consisting of 36 Kulas or clans which are allowed to give and take daughters from one another. This confining themselves to a close group must have taken place about the end of the second or the beginning of the third sub-period of the Mediæval Hindu age, as we know that caste in the three Aryan higher grades was fluid during the first sub-period. For though the list of 36 clans cannot be traced earlier than the poem of Chand yet the number 36 is mentioned before him by Kalhaṇa who wrote his Rājatarangiṇī in 1148 A. D. (VII 1617 wherein it is said that the Rajputs in their pride would not concede a higher position to even the sun). And the enumeration by Chand seems to be as old as the days of Pṛithvīrāja and cannot be treated a later interpolation as we shall presently show. Tod has given five lists of which one dates earlier than the Rāsā but he does not say how old this first list is; it was obtained from a Jati in the old city of Nadol in Marwad but since it gives some names such as Jhālā which are of later date, it appears that the list in the Rāsā is really the oldest we have. The third list is from Kumārapāla-charita a contemporary work of Chand but it does not give 36 names. In short it seems that the Rāsā first enumerated the 36 and the enumeration together with the number has become traditional inasmuch as the Rāsā became to the Rajputs what Homer's Iliad was to the Greeks.

v2.c28.s1.2

Strangely, however, there is a great discrepancy in the interpretation of these verses of the Rāsā and we think that even the latest editors of the Rāsā have misunderstood their meaning. We will first give the verses here for the curious reader and then give our rendering of them.

v2.c28.s1.3

रवि ससि जाधवं वंस । ककुत्स्थ परमार सदावर ॥ चाहुवान चालुक । छंदक सिलार अर्भायर ॥ दोय मत्त (दोयमत) मकवान । गहअ गोहिल गोहिलपुत ॥ चापोत्कट परिहार । राव राठोर रोसजुत ॥ देवंरा टांक सैधव अनिग [अनंग] । यौतिक प्रतिहार दधिपद ॥ कारटपाल कोटपाल हुल । हरितट गोर कला [मा] प मट ॥ धन्य [धान्य] पालक निकुंभवर । राजपाल कविनंस ॥ कालच्छुरके आदि दे । वरने वंस छतीस ॥

v2.c28.s1.4

The few variations given above in brackets are taken from the copy of the Rāsā we personally saw and inspected at the Udepur Museum Library. Now people generally and Tod and even Mohanlal Pandya in the interpretation he has given in the recent edition of the Rāsā enumerate 1. Ravi 2. Śaśi and 3. Jādhava among the 36. But this inclusion would make the number more than 36 as we proceed to show. Let us take the list from the bottom so that we shall at once be able to see that 1. Ravi 2. Śaśi and 3. Jādhava cannot be included. These names are:—

v2.c28.s1.5

1. Kālachchhuraka.
2. Kavinīsa (omitted by Mohanlal but not by Tod.)
3. Rājapāla.
4. Nikumbhavara.
5. Dhānya-pālaka (omitted by Tod but not by Mohanlal.)
6. Mata (omitted by Tod.)
7. Kamāsha (Kalāsha).
8. Gaura.
9. Haritaṭa (omitted by Tod).
10. Hula. (Mohanlal wrongly interprets it as Hūṇa).
11. Koṭapāla.
12. Kārattapāla.
13. Dadhishaṭ (Tod gives Didiot).
14. Pratihāra.
15. Yautika (Tod gives Pātaka).
16. Aniga (Tod gives Anaṅga).
17. Saindhava.
18. Tāka.
19. Deorā.
20. Rosajuta (omitted both by Tod and Mohanlal).
21. Rāthoda.
22. Parihāra.
23. Chāpoṭkaṭa.
24. Guhilota (Gohilaputra). [Tod mentions Gohil only.]
25. Gohila.
26. Garua (omitted both by Tod and Mohanlal).
27. Makavāna.
28. Doyamata.
29. Abhīyara.
30. Silāra.
31. Chhandaka.
32. Chālukka.
33. Chāhuvāna.
34. Sadāvara.
35. Paramāra.
36. Kakutstha.

v2.c28.s1.6

Now we need not detain the reader on the inaccuracies of Tod as he has made out a list of 30 only by omitting many and even after including wrongly 1. Ravi 2. Śaśi and 3. Jādhava. Let us, however, see how Mohanlal is mistaken in including these. He has first omitted (2) Kavinīsa which even Tod admits (20) Rosajuta and (26) Garua. It is not possible to suggest that Rosajuta is an adjunct of Rāthoḍ which has already one viz., Rao (and which itself may be treated separately). And Garua cannot be an adjective of Gohila for though Guhilots were certainly famous Gohilas were not. It is thus that Mohanlal has been wrongly induced to add 1. Ravi 2. Śaśi and 3. Jādhava.

v2.c28.s1.7

But the most convincing proof why these three cannot be included in the 36 is that these were never the names of any clans in the sense the other names are. For the chief importance of these clan names is that they are practically for Rajputs what gotras are for Brahmins in respect of marriage. No Kula or clan out of the 36 can marry in the same clan. A Chālukka cannot marry a Chālukka and a Chohan cannot marry a Chohan. Ravi, Śaśi and Jādhava, especially the first two are not clan names in this sense. They are the names of races in which the 36 clans may be grouped. The Sūryavamśa, the Chandravamśa and the Yaduvamśa are the famous Vamśas of the Purāṇas and they do not indicate clans for purposes of marriage. There is no objectoin for a Sūryavamśī to marry a Sūryavamśī. As a matter of fact the Guhilots of Udepur and the Kachhavāhas of Jaipur are both Sūryavamśīs but they do intermarry. The Purāṇas also do not show that Sūryavamśa or Chandravamśa was prohibitive of marriage within itself. Rāma and Sītā were both Suryavamśī and so were Arjuna and Draupadī both Chandravamśī. In Purāṇic times the Kshatriyas were observers of gotras only and Rāma being of Vaśiṣṭha gotra and Sītā of Gautama gotra could marry. In modern times the Kshatriyas have adopted the clan system to determine who cannot marry whom, and as we have already shown, it practically fulfils the gotra law of the Smṛitis. The argument why Ravi, Śaśi and Jādhava cannot be treated as clans like the other names will, therefore, be clear and we are certain that Chand merely indicates here the three great vamśas or races in which all the following 36 were to be grouped. The word vamśa used here only is of importance and has a meaning different from the same word used at the end (वरने वंस छतीस).

v2.c28.s1.8

The question may here be asked why the Yadu-vamśa has been separately counted when it comes under the Chandravamśa. But it seems that the Jādhavas were always separately counted from the other Chandravamśīs. Even in the Rigveda, the Yadū-Turvaśas are separately mentioned, the Turvaśas eventually disappearing. The Yādavas are again separately treated in the Purāṇas they having no right to be kings owing to the alleged curse of Yayāti. They were probably still pastoral in habits and hence their separate mention. It is, therefore, not strange that the Yaduvamśīs are separately mentioned from the Chandravamśīs. Their clans viz., Bhātī, Jadejā and others can intermarry as has already been shown and hence it is evident that Jādhava is not a clan like any of the 36.

v2.c28.s1.9

It will be clear, therefore, that 1. Ravi 2. Śaśi and 3. Jādhava have not to be counted in the enumeration of the 36 families and the only way of making up the number is as shown above viz., by treating Garua, Rosajuta and Kavinīsa as separate clans. The same thing is clear from the fact that Sūrajmal author of Vamśabhāskara treats Ravi and Śaśi as races and not families when he numbers them as five instead of three, viz., the old four, Bhujabhava, Manubhava, Arkabhava, Śaśibhava and the fifth Śuchibhava (fire-born). Bhujabhava means those created by Brahmā himself from his arms and Manubhava those born of Manu, while the Arka or Sun and Śaśi the moon are treated as the remaining two. We have already quoted this verse of Sūrajamal and we hold that there can be no possible doubt that Chand treated 1. Ravi 2. Śaśi and 3 Jādhava as races and not clans or families of which he has given the number as 36.

v2.c28.s1.10

Now this list of the 36 cannot be dated in the 17th century A. D. when the Rāsā is supposed to have been fabricated but seems to be as old as Chand Bhāta of Prithvīrāja's court. We have the mention of many clans here which had no existence in the 17th century and Tod himself is in a difficulty as to their identity. And many clans or families which were well-known in the 17th century find no mention in the list. Thus Rosajuta, Ananga, Yautika, Dadhishat, Kārattapāla, Kotapāla, Haritaṭa, Kamāsha, Maṭa, Dhānyapāla, Rājapāla and Kavinīsa are difficult to be traced; while Bhāti, Jhālā, Bais and other modern tribes are conspicuous by their absence. Thirdly, some names are rather obscure though their identity is not doubtful. Kakustha is equated to Kachhavāha and Sadāvara to Tuar by Mohanlal Pandya properly, though it is very doubtful whether these names were ever in use. On these grounds it seems almost certain that this list given in the Rāsā is very old in fact as old as the 12th century A. D.

First 55 of 150 passages. Read on

Linked texts (34)