Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c28.s1: The 36 Royal Clans or Rajput Families.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c28.s1

Language
English

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.

v2.c28.s1.11

We may here discuss the propriety of the identification of each tribe as given by Mohanlal in his edition of the Rāsā (Vol. I p. 54). Chhanda is treated as Randel but this is probably a misprint for Chandel. The Rāsā sometimes uses the word Chand as a short form for Chandel.* Doyamata as Dāhima is again doubtful; Aniga as Ananga is also obscure. Parihāra and Pratihāra are both given in the list and must be distinct. Now which of the two is the Padhihar of Mandor? That question is unsolved. Kārattapāla is certainly not Kāthi who are not admitted to be one of the 36 Rajput families. Kotapāla is left unexplained and Maṭa cannot be jāt who are not admitted to be Rajputs. Lastly, Dhānyapāla and Rājapāla are not identified. We may add that Garua who are omitted by Mohanlal may be said to be Gujara which in Prākrit would be Guar which by transposition becomes Garua. The Bīra Gujars are a well-known family of Rajputs. Gujara and Ābhīra or Ahīra are noted names of Śūdras and Vaiśyas indeed but they have been taken as the names of certain kingly families which ruled over these people and which were, however, Kshatriya families.

v2.c28.s1.12

∗ e. g. राज चंद नहीं जाय ।

v2.c28.s1.13

Before concluding, we may notice the argument advanced by many that after all Hūṇa was admitted to be one of the 36 royal clans and thus the inclusion of foreign races as true Kshatriyas stands proved by admission; and state that Hūṇa is not one of the 36 according to the enumeration of the Rāsā. The name given there is Hula with short u and l and not Hūṇa. By no rules of transformation Prākṛit or other can Hūṇa become Hula. It may be argued that the inscriptions do mention the marriage of Kshatriya kings with Hūṇa princesses and that there is also mentioned a Hūṇa kingdom in India in the inscriptions of the time. Both these facts may be admitted but they do not prove that the Hūṇa kings were treated as Kshatriya kings. Kings then married and marry still wives from Vaiśya and Śūdra and even Mlechchha families but that does not prove that any of the latter were treated as Kshatriyas. For example some Rajput princes have taken even now Hūṇa princesses i. e. princesses from English or French or Spanish families. But none of these people are, therefore, Kshatriyas nor are the ladies themselves treated as Kshatriyas nor their progeny. And in Mahomedan times Rajput princesses were given in marriage to Mogul and other Mahomedan emperors and kings. But such relations do not establish the proposition that these Moguls or Mahomedans were treated or looked upon as Kshatriyas. It is, therefore, not possible to argue from these marriage relations that the Hūṇas were treated as Kshatriyas.

v2.c28.s1.14

Who were the Hula mentioned among the 36? We are not bound to answer the question for there are many unidentifiable names among the 36 clans enumerated by Chand. In the Hindi census report of Marwar, however, there appears a branch by name Hula of Śisodia Rajputs. This fact shows that there was and is still the name Hula current in Marwar (see report for 1891 and 1895 Vol. III in Hindi, page 6). The name is taken as the name of a branch of Guhilots; but probably they may be a distinct clan and family by themselves. Any how the name appearing in the list of 36 by Chand is Hula and not Hūṇa and this has been verified by us even in the copy of the Rāsā in the Udepur Library. That they were distinct from Hūṇa is further proved by the fact that among the clans which assist Bappā Rāwal in his fight with Mahomedans are mentioned both Hūṇas and Hulas (see Tod's Rajastan by Crooke Vol. I. p. 290). Although these catalogues of Rajput clans gathering frequently to assist the Guhilots of Mewad are of later date, they at least prove that Hula was a clan of Rajputs which was differentiated from Hūṇa.

v2.c28.s1.15

ARE THE AGNIKULAS GUJARS ?

v2.c28.s1.16

Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar in his paper in Indian Antiquary Vol. XL (1911) tries to prove that the so-called four Agnikula clans viz., Pratihāra, Paramāra, Chālukya and Chāhamāna are Gujars (see his paper on Foreign Elements in Hindu population). It is not difficult to show that this view is incorrect and in this chapter we propose to answer the arguments adduced by him in this paper.

v2.c28.s1.17

The ancient Vedic history of caste and marriage has been much misunderstood by Dr. Bhandarkar and the inferences he draws in the beginning of his paper must be accepted with caution. There is no doubt that in Vedic times there was for a time a great commingling of the Aryan race with the Dravidian race which originally inhabited this country. Among the Aryans themselves, caste was then rather a class distinction, the three castes Brāhmins, Kshatriyas and Vaiśyas freely intermarrying. But there was in this no mixture of races as the three castes were Aryan by race. When after settling in India these classes began to take Śūdra wives, then only the fusion of races began and for a time this fusion was unchecked. The Nahusha episode in the Mahābhārata (Vana Parva Chap. 180) affords distinct proof that such mixture of blood went on for a time.* But opinion soon gathered strength against the marriage of higher caste men with Śūdra women, as the result of such marriages was found to be extremely unsatisfactory. Especially Pratiloma marriage with Śūdras was found to be disastrous and this view is embodied in the following observation of Manu जातो नार्यामनार्यायामार्यादायो भवेद्गुणे । जातस्वनायर्यादार्यायामनार्य इति निश्चयः ॥ " A person born of a non-Aryan woman from an Aryan man might be Aryan by qualities, but a person born of a non-Aryan man from an Aryan woman is most certainly non-Aryan by qualities." In consequence Pratiloma marriage with Śūdras was soon stopped and by imitation Pratiloma marriage among higher castes also. Anuloma marriages with Śūdra women continued to take place infrequently no doubt but, as Yājñavalkya distinctly said that he was of the opinion that a Śūdra wife should not be taken, a prohibition began to be observed even in this direction.

v2.c28.s1.18

∗ जातिरत्र महासर्प मनुष्यत्वे महामते । संकरत्वात्सवर्णनां दुप्परीक्ष्येति मतिः । सर्वे सर्वपत्यानि जनयन्ति सदा नराः । तस्माच्छीलं प्रधानंष्टं विदुर्यै तद्दर्शिनः ।

v2.c28.s1.19

Such then was the state of caste and the law of marriage in the time of Megasthenes who lived in India about 300 B. C. He distinctly states that "No one is allowed to marry out of his own 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." (McCrindle's Ancient India Megasthenes pp. 85-86). This shows that caste was already a water-tight compartment in the days of Megasthenes i. e. about 300 B. C How could then the Śakas and Yavanas have been admitted into Indian castes? Even if they became Buddhists or Hindus, they remained a distinct caste as is proved by the very fact that they are, even after becoming Buddhists or Hindus, called Śakas or Yavanas in the inscriptions quoted by Dr. Bhandarkar himself. Maga Brahmins too remained Magas and, therefore, a distinct sub-caste. We do not know whether the Magas came after Megasthenes even as the Śakas and Yavanas unquestionably did. The fact that they were and are called Maga Brāhmins shows that they remained separate and did not merge their blood with that of the other Brāhmins.

v2.c28.s1.20

We have the historical evidence of Megasthenes relating to the state of caste in 300 B. C. We have similarly a distinct foreign piece of evidence with regard to the state of castes about 600 A. D. in the writings of Hiuen Tsang and we have already quoted his statement in our first volume. He says "the members of the caste marry within the caste" (Vol. I p. 60). Now here the exception noted by Megasthenes is not mentioned and caste appears now as an entirely confined body. Inscriptions, however, show that the Brāhmins sometimes did marry Ksha triya women especially when daughters of kings (see Vol. I p. 61) and Kshatriya kings married daughters of Vaiśya kings. The difference, however, in the result of such marriages may be noted. In most ancient times the progeny of such marriages was treated as of the caste of the father as in the case of Vyāsa and others. In later times an intermediate position was assigned to the progeny and this led to the formation of intermediate mixed castes*. But later still, in the days of Harsha and subsequent centuries it appears from inscriptions that the progeny was treated as belonging to the caste of the mother.† This is at least certain in the case of Brāhmins. For example we are told in an inscription of the Pratihāras that a Brāhmin married a Brāhmin wife and a Kshatriya wife and the progeny of the Brāhmin wife became Padhihar Brāhmins while the progeny of the Kshatriya wife became Padhihar Kshatriyas. From roughly the 11th century onward, as we shall show in our third volume, marriage outside the caste was treated as illegal by a Kalivarja text. This history of the development of caste (see Note) if borne in mind will dispel many of the doubts created by stories in the Purāṇas quoted by Dr. Bhandarkar.

v2.c28.s1.21

† Later Smritis such as Vyāsa contain this provision which means a further tightening of caste.

v2.c28.s1.22

With these preliminary remarks we now proceed to discuss the cogency of the particular arguments adduced by Dr. Bhandarkar to prove that the four supposed Agnikula tribes were Gujars who were allied to the Huns and therefore foreigners. It is necessary at the outset to say that because a tribe is mentioned along with another and foreign tribe in any connection, therefore it does not follow that the first tribe is also a foreign tribe. Because Bāṇa says in Harsha-charita that Pratāpavardhana the Thanesar king conquered the Huns and also the Gujars, therefore it would be absurd to argue that the Gujars were a foreign tribe allied to the Huns and came to India along with them. On this evidently fallacious argument Dr. Bhandarkar tries to prove that the Haihayas also were foreigners, simply because they are mentioned in the Purāṇas along with foreigners. "As the Haihayas are classed (?) with Śakas, the Yavanas, the Pāradas, the Kāmbojas there can be little doubt that they were regarded as Mlechchhas at about the 4th century A. D. when the Harivaṃśa was composed" (p. 19). This is certainly illogical, for we must have a distinct statement to hold that the Haihayas were themselves regarded as Mlechchhas. Though they might have taken the aid of Mlechchhas in their wars, they themselves cannot thereby become Mlechchhas. But the case of the Haihayas is still stronger. For the Harivaṃśa itself and all the Purāṇas agree in stating that the Haihayas and their ancient king Sahasrārjuna were Aryans belonging to the Lunar Vamśa. Not only this, throughout Indian history and down to the present time the Haihayas are treated as some of the best Kshatriyas. As shown in our first Volume (p. 345) their anthropometrical characteristics are also distinctly Aryan*. While again the Haihayas are distinctly Aryans and are treated as Aryans and the best Kshatriyas, the Huns were distinctly mentioned as foreigners and were treated as foreigners by the orthodox Hindus. A Kshatriya recorded as marrying a Hūṇa princess in ancient days no more makes a Hun an Indian and a Kshatriya than a Native prince in these days marrying a Spanish lady makes the Spanish, Indians or Kshatriyas. The Huns were never treated as one of the 36 Royal families as we have already shown in our note and Dr. Bhandarkar like many others is mistaken in looking upon them as Kshatriyas. With these unavoidable further preliminary observations which are, however, necessary, we proceed to examine one by one the case of the four Agnikulas whom Dr. Bhandarkar believes to have been Gujar.

v2.c28.s1.23

∗ Smritis generally embody this state of the marriage law. There was indeed a previous intermediate step, however, which is contained in the Manu Smṛiti. This was to the effect that if the wife was of the next caste only the progeny was to be treated as of the caste of the father. But this intermediate step soon disappeared and other Smritis do not contain this provision but declare the progeny to be of an intermediate mixed caste.

v2.c28.s1.24

∗ Dr. Bhandarkar mentions here the unnecessary fact that the Haihayas the Haihayas claim descent from Sahasrārjuna. Perhaps this is intended to hint that the Haihayas too are foreign by race. But it is clearly proved that the Haihayas the Haihayas are Aryan by their features and by their traditions. Being Dr. Bhandarkar does not wish to hate any other caste from his theory of foreign descent.

v2.c28.s1.25

even though this also would not make them foreigners. For Gujars as stated many a time before are not foreigners but are anthropometrically Aryans with the best Aryan noses and are historically the Vaiśyas of the Vedas and the Smṛtis.

v2.c28.s1.26

The first and foremost supposed Agnikula tribe is the Pratihāra to which the Imperial Pratihāras of Kanauj belonged. Now Dr. Bhandarkar admits that they never call themselves Gujars in their inscriptions, that their names are Aryan names like Vatsarāja, Nāgabhata and so on, that they represent themselves in their inscriptions as Sūrya-Vaṁśis, that even Rājaśekhara a noted poet in their time calls them Raghukulatilakas. These facts should have induced Dr. Bhandarkar to examine carefully the arguments which appear to show them as Gujars. Instead of that, he twists these facts themselves into arguments to hold "how wonderfully soon foreign tribes were assimilated with the Hindus and were even treated as Kshatriyas and solar race Kshatriyas"!!! As a matter of fact ancient Hindus and Hindus of the 8th century A. D. too were as strongly against the amalgamation of varṇas as they are now; and Dr. Bhandarkar should rather have laid stress on these facts in order to see that the other facts which appear to show them as Gujars must be explained in another way (see p. 23 Ind. Ant. XL. 1911).

v2.c28.s1.27

But what are these opposing facts and how are they to be explained? The first argument adduced is that a minor Pratihāra dynasty ruling in the south-east of modern Jaipur territory calls itself Gurjara Pratihāra in an inscription found at Rājor. Now since the Pratihāras of Kanauj never call themselves Gujars, these Pratihāras call themselves so, simply to distinguish themselves from other Pratihāras, and the method of such distinction is the natural one viz., that based on the mention of the country of residence. As there are Nāgar and Kanojia Brāhmins i.e. of Nagar and Kanauj, these Pratihāras call themselves Gujar Pratihāras because they inhabited the Gujar country. Dr. Bhandarkar has himself shown here that this part of the country was and is inhabited mainly by Gujars. Nay, this part was alone called Gurjaratrā or Gujarat in those days and Dr. Bhandarkar is right when he says that Gurjaratrā in the 8th and 9th centuries was not modern Gujarat but southern Rajputana extending up to the south-east part of the present Jaipur State. It is, therefore, not at all strange that these Pratihāras in order to distinguish themselves call themselves Gurjara Pratihāra from the country they ruled or resided in and not because they were themselves Gujars by caste. In any case the Imperial Pratihāras cannot be looked upon as Gujars on the basis of this inscriptional statement*.

v2.c28.s1.28

But Dr. Bhandarkar has adduced the further argument that these Pratihāras of Kanauj were called Gujars by the Rāshṭrakūṭas in their inscriptions and also by the Arabs in their accounts of travel. These two facts cannot be contested and the Rāshṭrakūṭas and the Arabs often were allies in their fights with the Pratihāras of Kanauj. When the Rāshṭrakūṭa grants refer to their battles with Gurjaras they mean the Kanauj kings, for these alone were powerful enough to fight with them and these indeed were the overlords of a very large part of Northern India; and so also the Arabs speak of the kingdom of Kanauj when they speak of the kingdom of Juzr. But does this fact prove that the kings of Kanauj were Gujars by caste? Because Indians call the Mahomedans Yavanas does it prove that the Mahomedans are Greeks by race or descent? In the thirteenth century and later the Rajputs called all Mahomedans Turakadā from their first fight with the Turks viz., Mahmud of Ghazni; does that show that every Mahomedan that came to India whether he be Afghan or Persian was a Turk by race or caste? The argument is in short ineffectual and cannot weigh against the facts which distinctly show that the Pratihāras were Sūrya-Vaṁśi Rajputs or Kshatriyas by caste. As the Arabs of Sind were on the east bounded by the Gurjaratrā country which was then the name of South Rajputana and as the country was ruled by the Pratihāras it was but natural that the Arabs called the country and the king by the name of Juzr and indeed the Rāshṭrakūṭas too called them Gurjaras for the same reason.

v2.c28.s1.29

Still more flimsy is the argument based on the legend of the Pratihāra origin given in certain inscriptions (p. 24 ditto) viz.

v2.c28.s1.30

∗ The phrase Gurjara Pratihāra need not be interpreted to mean Pratihāras who were Gurjaras but should be interpreted as Pratihāras of the Gurjara country.

v2.c28.s1.31

a certain Brahmin had a Brahmin wife and a Kshatriya wife and the progeny of the Brahmin wife became Padhihar Brahmins while the progeny of the Kshatriya wife became Padhihar Rajputs. "The marriage of a Brahmin with a Kshatriya woman with the result as noted in this inscription is curious and can only be accounted for as being of foreign importation." Such marriage with such result, as shown in the beginning of this chapter is *not* curious but is normal; but even if it were, that it should be treated as an argument for the foreign extraction of the Pratihāras is certainly very curious. In this manner indeed, any inference can be drawn from this legend, the inference e. g. that these people were cannibals and so on. Thus so far as Pratihāras are concerned we find that all the three opposing arguments which Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar adduces are ineffectual and cannot weigh against the facts which show that the Imperial Pratihāras were Rajputs. Having thus far refuted Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar's strong case we will proceed to examine the case of the second supposed Agnikula clan, the Chālukya or Solankhi.

v2.c28.s1.32

Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar admits that there is *no epigraphic evidence* in their case but he argues that "since Gujarat of to-day bears this name since the Chālukyas occupied or conquered the country, if the Chālukyas had not been of Gujar extraction, it is inconceivable how this province came to be called Gurjaratrā when it was till their advent known as Lāṭa" (p. 24). Now there is no doubt that Gujaratrā in the 8th and 9th or even 10th centuries was the name of southern Rajputana as inscriptions of that period show. Lāṭa was not, however, the name of the whole of modern Gujarat. It was the name of southern Gujarat *i. e.* Surat and adjacent parts. Central Gujarat was Ānarta while northern Gujarat was sometimes called Sārasvata Mandala though all the three were sometimes called Lāṭa. Now it seems that these three parts have latterly acquired the name Gujarat because of the Gujarati language and not because of the establishment of the Chālukya rule. The modern languages of India, as we have already observed, arose about the 9th century and the language of these parts generally assumed the modern Gujarati form. How old the Gujarati language is and how old the word Gujarati is, it is difficult to determine. For while the word Mahārāshtrī as the name of a language is as old as Vararuchi of the 1st century B.C. the word Mahārāshtra as the name of a country is much later, certainly later than Varāha Mihira of the fifth century A. D. It is, therefore, not difficult to suppose that Mahārāshtra assumed this name for the country from the common language namely modern Mahārāshtrī. Similarly it would be proper to believe that the name Gujarat for the province was adopted owing to the prevalence of the Gujarati language.

v2.c28.s1.33

But that question does not really concern us; whatever may be the reason of the name Gujarat appertaining to the province, it would be absurd to argue that because the province began to be called Gujarat about their time, therefore the Chālukyas were Gujars by caste. The names of countries arise in different ways and stick for extremely different reasons. England, for example, began to be called England after the Norman conquest and yet the Normans were not Angles. The Angles themselves were an insignificant people compared with the Saxons and yet the name of the country has remained Angle-land ignoring the Saxons altogether. France began to be called France when the Franks were no longer masters and had been entirely merged in the general Gaelic population and had lost their German character and affinities. So also in India the English called the eastern districts of the Madras Presidency by the name of Carnātik when they were not ruled by Carnātik kings and when even the language was not Carnātik; but they simply continued the name given to the country by the Marathas who looked upon the whole of southern India as Karnātaka. It is, therefore, extremely illogical to argue that the Chālukyas were Gujars because from about their time the province began to be called Gujarat.

v2.c28.s1.34

Going on to the third supposed Agnikula clan the Paramāras, we find that Dr. D. R Bhandarkar is at a loss to find any argument which could make these also Gujars and is driven to observe that though we do not know to what race they belonged it is morally certain that they were of foreign extraction. It is for the first time we read of moral certainty in a case like this where there are no considerations of morality in discussing the race of a people.

v2.c28.s1.35

The reader will leave Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar to his moral views and will hold with us that there is no proof or argument to show that the Paramāras were Gujars or even foreigners.

v2.c28.s1.36

Lastly, we come to the consideration of the case of Chāhamānas or Chauhans to prove whose Gujar extraction Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar is at the worst pains and begins from some old Sassanian coins found in the north-west of India and ends with the Himālayan Siwalik hills. The whole argument savours so completely of the Pickwickian method of research that it is a wonder that a man of Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar’s capacities should have fallen a prey to it. We are certain if he had not been obsessed by his theory of the foreign or Gujar descent of the Rajputs, he would himself have seen the absurdity of his own argument. Let us see how his argument is transparently based on pure imagination.

v2.c28.s1.37

Certain coins have been found in Northern India on which is read the legend Sri Vāsudeva Vahman in Nāgarī characters and in Pehlvi “Takkān, Jabulistān and Sapardalakshān.” First Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar to suit his purpose reads Vahman as Chāhman “because the characters of the letters v and ch in old days were so close to each other that one might be easily mistaken for the other.” “And Chāhman, it need scarcely be said, stands for Chāhamāna (ma lenghtened into mā) so that Vāsudeva of these coins is a Chāhamāna and since Vāsudeva is mentioned in Prithvīrāja Vijaya as the founder of the Chāhamāna family of Śākambarī, that founder must be the same as the Chāhman of these Sassanian coins.” “Rājaśekhara’s Prabandha-kośa also gives one Vāsudeva as the founder of the Chāhamāna family for whom he gives the date 608 V. E.” This date is a serious difficulty in establishing the identity of these two Vāsudevas. But Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar is not at a loss. He naively observes that the kośa gives a date which is rather early and the proper date to be assigned appears to be 627 A. D. concluded from the type of coins which are an exact copy of the coins of Parveiz Khuśru. So Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar cannot only change letters but also dates to suit his theory, but what is still more strange is that he can change the race also at his sweet will. Cunningham held that Vāsudeva of the coins was a Hūṇa and Prof. Rapson thinks that he was a Sussanian (from the legend of the coins as also from their type). But Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar thinks that he was a *Khazar* why he alone knows. It is sufficient to place this whole argument before the reader in detail to enable him to come to the conclusion that Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar has failed signally in showing that the Chāhamānas were Gujars.

v2.c28.s1.38

But the greatest mistake which Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar has committed in this connection is that of placing the town of Ahichchhatra and the country Sapādalaksha in the Siwalik hilly region of the Himalayas. He has in fact in doing so distorted the natural course of Indian history and represented Brahmins and Kshatriyas, as moving south from this place. But how can we believe that Rajputs spread from the Siwalik hilly regions into India even if they were Gujars? If Gujars were foreigners who had come along with the Huns as conquerors, they would settle in the inviting plains of the Panjab and not go to the difficult Himalayas to settle. As a matter of fact history and tradition tell us that Brāhmins and Rajputs went into these sub-montane inhospitable regions in historical times from the Panjab, in consequence of the inroads of foreign invaders down to the Turks, in the same way as many took shelter in the sands and hills of Rajastan. It is, therefore, absurd to point to the Siwalik hills as the original *habitat* of either the Rajputs or the Gujars. The identification of Sapādalaksha with Siwalik hilly region is absurd and we need not go to Babar for an explanation of that word. Babar gives perhaps the current explanation when the original and correct explanation was forgotten. We give in a note an extract from the Skanda Purāṇa giving the list of countries in India about the 9th century A. D. and the traditional number of villages assigned to each. Sapādalaksha is a name which is given in this list to four or five countries and the first of them is Śākambhara or the land of the Chauhāns. It is also given to Karnātaka and to Mewad and also to Varendu which is not identifiable, but which probably means the Delhi region*. When the coins noticed by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar mention Takkān, Zabulistān and Sapadalakshān they probably mean the Panjab with Ghazni on the west and the Delhi province in the south-east which three probably comprised the territory ruled by Vāsudev Vahman, a Sassanian king. In any case Sapādalaksha does not indicate 1¼ lakhs of hills but 1¼ lakhs of villages and this number is traditionally assigned to Sākambhara, Mewad, Delhi and Karnātaka as the evidence of the Skanda Purāna conclusively proves.

v2.c28.s1.39

∗ Or it might mean the region about Multan for Al-Masandi relates that around Multan these were one hundred and twenty thousand towns and villages (Elliot I p. 23).

v2.c28.s1.40

Ahichchhatra again is wrongly placed in the Himalayan region. It is undoubtedly the famous capital of North Pānchāla as mentioned in the Mahābhārata and Cunningham has properly identified it from Hiuen Tsang's description with Rampur. The words "being flanked by mountain crags" need not suggest the Himālayas at all and this Ahichchhatra was properly enough the place to which Brahmins and Kshatriyas in the south looked as their original habitat. The Pānchāla country is famous in Vedic literature as the residence of learned Brahmins. It was also the country of the valiant Pānchāla Kshatriyas and Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar need not wonder that the founder of the Chāhamāna family is said to have come from Ahichchhatra. The Chāhamānas did not take the word Sapādalaksha to the new country for it was not a name like Holland which could be taken to other places but it was a word denoting a number of villages which comprised their territory. Again Karnātaka or Dhārwār was called Sapādalaksha because it contained that number of villages. The name was not taken and could not be taken from the north to Dhārwār. The strange conclusion which Dr. Bhandarkar derives from this word used for Karnātaka viz., that the habitat of the Chālukyas like that of the Chāhamānas was also the mountain region called Sapādalaksha and hence they too were foreigners is, therefore, absurd and the whole theory which he has built on the wrong identification of Ahichchhatra and Sapādalaksha is to say the least mistaken. We, therefore, think that Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar's attempt to prove that the four supposed Agnikula clans were Gujars has signally failed and his theory must be abandoned. It must be mentioned that Mr. Har Bilas Sarda of Ajmer has already pointed out that Sapādalaksha meant the Sambar country though he thinks Ahichchhatra should be identified with Nagore in Marwad. Whether the Chāhamānas came from Rampur or were originally of Nagore, it is certain that there is not a scrap of evidence to show that they were Gujars and we shall not further dilate upon this untenable theory of the foreign extraction of the Rajputs started by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar and accepted by Jackson and Smith. We will instead in the next chapter indicate the positive arguments which in our opinion go to prove that they are the representatives of the ancient Vedic Aryans of India.

v2.c28.s1.41

THE SKANDA PURĀṆA LIST OF COUNTRIES IN INDIA WITH THE NUMBER OF VILLAGES IN EACH COUNTRY.

v2.c28.s1.42

The Mahābhārata list of countries or rather peoples in India is important for Indian history preceding the Christian era. Varāha Mihira’s list is similarly important for the fifth century A.D., while Hiuen Tsang’s travels supply us with accurate and detailed information about the peoples of India in the beginning of the 7th century A. D. There is a list of countries in India (not peoples) in the Skanda Purāṇa, Kumāra Khaṇḍa, Chapter 39 which is equally important for Indian history and gives us pretty accurate information about the 9th century A. D. This Purāṇa can clearly be assigned to the 9th or 10th century from this very list; as therein the old names of countries or rather peoples find no place and new names occur denoting countries or rather provinces which generally well fit in with the 9th century and which mostly subsist to this day, though there are many names which are unidentifiable. Below are specially marked those names which can be identified and also their extent and importance. The numbers assigned to each country are mentioned as numbers of villages and there is no vagueness about them though in many cases the numbers are palpably unbelievable. But some numbers are corroborated from inscriptions of the time and we must recognise the fact that countries or provinces had at this time been assigned a fixed number of villages by tradition.

v2.c28.s1.43

The list begins from the north and correctly reflects the political condition of India in the 9th century A. D. We first have Nepāl with one lakh of villages and immediately next naturally comes Kānyakubja with 36 lakhs. This shows that the Kanauj empire was at its height, an extensive empire covering Oudh, the Gangetic valley, part of the Panjab and Gwalior territory and the valley of the Jumna. Now this number of villages of Kanauj is also mentioned in the Prabandha Chintāmaṇi. What Gājaṇaka is, which next follows with 72 lakhs cannot be surmised. Probably in the usual fashion of the Purāṇas facts and fictions are jumbled together in order to make up the total of 96 crores and 72 lakhs of villages, an exaggeration befitting the Purāṇas, for the whole of India. Then comes the Gauda country or Bengal with 18 lakhs which means a territory half of the Kanauj empire which is not impossible. Next we have Kāmarūpa and Oddiyāna or Orissa with the same extent as Kāmarūpa or Assam i. e. 9 lakhs or half of Bengal or Gauda. The same extent is assigned to Dāhala or Bundelkhand which is described as Vedasamjna meaning probably that it consisted of four parts. Next we have Jālandhara and Lohapura or Lahore each with the same number of 9 lakhs. Next we recognise Raṭarajya or the kingdom of the Rāshtrakūtas with 7 lakhs of villages and we are reminded of the 7½ lakhs Rattapāḍi mentioned in inscriptions of this and the preceding period. We, hereafter, come across names which we do not recognise but we come next to countries to which the number assigned is 1¼ or Sapādalaksha. We have already explained how Dr. Bhandarkar has committed a mistake in interpreting the name and how he identified it with the hilly range at the foot of the Himālayas called Śiwalik hills. This list in the Skanda Purāṇa clearly establishes the fact that about 7 countries were then known as Supādalaksha countries viz., Varendu, Atilāngala, Sayambhara, Meḍapāta, (these two unquestionably are Sambhar and Mewad), Tomara, Karṇāta and Puṅgala, followed closely by Mālava which is assigned the exact figure 1 lakh 15 thousand and 180. One of these may be the Siwalik region though we are not certain about it but at any rate the word Śiwalik need not be derived from 1¼ lakhs of hills in that region.

v2.c28.s1.44

The next important countries which we recognize are Gurjarātrā 70000, Sind 20000, Kachbamaṇḍala 16020, Saurāshṭra 55000, Lāṭa 21000, Koṅkaṇa 36000 and Laghu Koṅkaṇa 16000. Here the form used is Gurjarātra and it is distinct from Lāṭa. Moreover, Gurjarātra appears to be yet southern Marwad and hence it seems probable that the Skanda Purāṇa is not later than the 11th century A. D.

v2.c28.s1.45

The extent of Kashmir given in this list is 68000 which is corroborated by Kashmir records as already observed in our Vol. I. Then follow many countries which are traditional though imaginary and must come in a list of Indian countries, such as Ekapāda and others. But we can identify Kāmboja, Kabul, Kośala (C.P.), Vidarbha, (Berar) with 5 lakhs or 2⅓ of Mahārāshtra, Vardhamāna (Wadhwan), Magadha 68,000 and lastly Mulasthānapura 25000. In all there are said to be 72 countries (the actual number of countries named comes, however, to 75) into which India was divided with 96 crores and 72 lakhs of villages. 36000 velākulas are also mentioned which we interpret as meaning so many Kos of coast line and one is reminded here of the fact that even in the days of Alexander, the length of the coast line of India was accurately reported to him by Indian informants.

v2.c28.s1.46

Before concluding, we may give here the mountains and rivers of India as enumerated in this Skanda Purāṇa in imitation of the Mahābhārata which apparently it has an ambition to equal. These are given in the same chapter 39 of the Kumāra Khaṇḍa. The chief mountain ranges, or Kulaparvatas as they are called here also, are the same seven viz.

v2.c28.s1.47

Mahendra, Malaya, Sahya, Śuktimān, Rikṣa, Vindhya and Pāriyātra. The first four are the well-known Eastern Ghats, Malaya, Western Ghats, and Girnar. Rikṣa is the Aravali range while Vindhya is the well-known range that stretches across India. But Pāriyātra is difficult to identify. It is described as the range to the south of which lies the Kaumāra Khaṇḍa; and from it rises the Veda—Smṛiti and other rivers. This description does not assist us much though we suspect that Pāriyātra now is some portion of the Western Vindhya range. The Narmadā and Sarasā properly rise from Vindhya but how can Śatadru and Chandrabhāgā rise from the Rikṣa range? Rishikulyā and Kumārī rise from the Śuktimān mountain of Kathiwar. The Tāpī, the Payoṣṇī, the Nirvindhyā, the Kāverī, the Kṛiṣṇā, the Veṇī, the Bhīmarathī rise from the Sahya which must be interpreted as including the Sātpura. And strangely the Godāvarī is conspicuous by its absence. The Kṛitamālā and the Tāmraparṇi rise from the Malaya Mountains while the Triśanu and the Rishyakulyā rise from the Mahendra. Probably the writer or recaster of the Purāṇa had not much acquaintance with northern or southern India and was a native of Gujarat or Malwa as he has described the Stambha (Khambayat), Prabhāsa, Avanti and Nāgara Tirthas with a fulness which bespeaks his partiality for and his familiarity with them. With these remarks we give the Skanda Purāṇa list of countries below:

v2.c28.s1.48

1. Nīvṛit 4 crores.
2. Bālāka 2½ crores.
3. Sāhaṇapura 1½ crore.
4. Andhala 4 lakh.
5. Nepāla 1 lakh.
6. Kānyakubja 36 lakh.
7. Gājaṇaka 72 lakh.
8. Gauda 18 lakh.
9. Kāmarūpa 9 lakh.
10. Dāhala 9 lakh.
11. Kāntipura 9 lakh.
12. Lohapura 9 lakh.
13. Pāmbipura 7 lakh.
14. Raṭarāja 7 lakh.
15. Hariyāla 5 lakh.
16. Drada 3½ lakh.
17. Māchīpura 9 lakh.
18. Oddiyāna 9 lakh.
19. Jālandhara 9 lakh.
20. Bambhaṇavāhaka 3½ lakh.
21. Nilapura 21 thousand.
22. Amala 1lakh.
23. Varendu Sapādalaksha
24. Atilāngala 11 thousand.
25. Mālava 1,18,180.
26. Sayambhara Sapādalaksha.
27. Mevāḍa Sapādalaksha.
28. Vāguri 88 thousand.
29. Gujarātra 77 thousand.
30. Pānduvishaya 70 thousand.
31. Jāhāhuti 42 thousand.
32. Kāshmīra 68 thousand.
33. Konkaṇa 36 thousand.
34. Laghu Konkaṇa 1,600.
35. Sindhu 22 thousand.
36. Kachchha 36 thousand.
37. Saurāshṭra 55 thousand.
38. Lāṭadesha 21 thousand.
39. Atisindhu 10 thousand.
40. Aśvamukha 10 thousand.
41. Ekapāda 10 thousand.
42. Sūryamukha 10 thousand.
43. Ekabāhu 10 thousand.
44. Sañjāyu 10 thousand.
45. Śivadesha 10 thousand.
46. Kālahayañjaya 10 thousand.
47. Liṅgodbhava 10 thousand.
48. Bhadra 10 thousand.

v2.c28.s1.49

49. Devabhadra 10 thousand.
50. Chaṭa 36 thousand.
51. Virāta 36 thousand.
52. Yamakoṭi 36 thousand.
53. Romaka 18 crores.
54. Tomara Sapādalaksha.
55. Karṇāta Sapādalaksha.
56. Piṅgala Sapādalaksha.
57. Strīrājya 5 lakh.
58. Pulastya 10 lakh.
59. Kāmboja 10 lakh.
60. Kosala 10 lakh.
61. Bālhika 4 thousand.
62. Laṅkā 36 thousand.

v2.c28.s1.50

63. Kuru 64 thousand
64. Kirāta 1½ lakh.
65. Vidarbha 5 lakh.
66. Vardhamāna 14 thousand.
67. Siṃhala 10 thousand.
68. Pāṇḍu 36 thousand.
69. Bhayāṇaka 1½ lakh.
70. Magadha 66 thousand.
71. Mūlasthāna 25 thousand.
72. Yāsana 40 thousand.
73. Pakshabāhu 4,000.
74. Pāṅgu 60,000.
75. Varendeka 30,000.

v2.c28.s1.51

THE MEANING OF THE WORD RAJPUT

v2.c28.s1.52

The Rajputs pride themselves on being Kshatriyas of noble descent belonging to the Vedic Aryan race. Unfortunately native writers impelled by bigotry and even by ignorance, owing to the fact that many Kshatriyas during the Aryo-Buddhistic period gave-up Aryan religion and Aryan practices and turned Buddhists, have expressed an opinion that the Rajputs are not pure Kshatriyas and go so far as to invoke a questionable statement in the Purāṇas to the effect that in the Kali age there would remain no Kshatriyas nor Vaiśyas (for the Vaiśyas also, even in greater number, had turned Buddhists) but only two Varṇas Brahmins and Śūdras. What is the value to be attached to these statements in the religious books of the Hindus and what is the true meaning of the term Rajput is a question which must be answered at the same time that we refute the adverse opinion of western scholars.

v2.c28.s1.53

There is not the least doubt that these statements of the Purāṇas are valueless and historically considered they are interpolations in the Purāṇic texts promoted not indeed by malice but by bigotry and through enmity to the Buddhists. It will not be difficult to prove that earlier texts exist which show that the word Rajput is not a new word coined in about the 9th century A. D. but an old, a very old word and that it was usually used in a very honourable sense. Words sometimes do take up double meanings, one a good and the other a bad one, but it is well to remember that the bad sense is usually a later growth. Many examples may be given but the very word Brahmin will suffice. It originally indicated the highest Varṇa or caste to whom the duty of preserving the Brahma or Veda was entrusted. But later on, we find that the duty of supplying water and even of cooking fell to the lot of this caste and hence the word Brahmin now-a-days often means a cook or a waterman (A Hindi saying has it that a Brahmin meant Babarchi, Bhisti, Bhikhari). In this way the term Rajput is sometimes applied to the illegitimate progeny of Kshatriyas or kings born of mothers of lower castes. But that this is not its original or general meaning will appear from the following disquisition.

v2.c28.s1.54

At Alwar it was stated to us by some Pandits that the word Rajput meant a mixed-caste man as stated in a verse of the Parāśara Smṛiti “वैश्यादष्टकन्यायां राजपुत्रः प्रजायते.” Now it may be stated at once that there is no such line in the Parāśara Smṛiti as it is ordinarily known. If any copy of the Smṛiti has this line it is plainly an interpolation. There is also this contradiction of this supposed statement of Parāśara that the author of Śūdra-Kamalākara looks upon Ugra as one who is popularly known as Rajput. An Ugra is the son of a Kshatriya from a Śūdra woman and the author of Śūdra-Kamalākara adds the explanation अयं च रजपूत इति भाषाप्रसिद्ध: "An Ugra is called Rajput in the spoken language." Now this view is also wrong but it undeniably shows that the text of Parāśara quoted above is spurious*.

v2.c28.s1.55

Rajput is a word which is indeed used sometimes in common parlance to denote the illegitimate sons of Rajput chiefs. But that it is not its ordinary meaning can be proved by the fact that the word is used so far back as the Mahābhārata in a good sense. In that ancient epic it indicates a Kshatriya generally (एते रुक्मरथा नाम राजपुत्रा महारथा:। रथेष्बस्त्रेषु निपुणा नागेषुच विशंपते ॥ २० ॥ द्रो० अ० ११२), but often times not an ordinary Kshatriya but one who is descended from a crowned king. It is sometimes urged that the Amarakośa does not give Rājaputra as a synonym of Kshatriya. This is true but the Amarakośa cannot claim to be an exhaustive dictionary and even if a word is not given in a Kośa or dictionary, it is no proof to hold that it has no existence or has not a particular meaning. Words in dead languages are to be known from use by classical authors and the word Rājaputra has been used in the sense of a Kshatriya in hundreds of places in the Mahābhārata. One instance of such use in the Mahābhārata will suffice. Other ślokas might be quoted using the word Rajput in the same or higher sense even in the Mahābhārata; but it is unnecessary to quote many instances. The following verse from Śāntiparva Adhyāya 64 shows that Rājaputra is often used in the simple sense of a Kshatriya: भैक्ष्यचर्या तत: प्राहस्तस्य (शूद्रस्य) सद्धर्मचारिण: । तथा वैश्यस्य राजेन्द्र राजपुत्रस्य चैव हि ॥. Rājaputra is very often used in a higher sense also, nay even the word Rājaputrī is often used in the Virāta Parva in addressing Draupadī, where the sense 'daughter of a king' does not appear to be intended, but merely a high-born Kshatriya lady. It may further be noted that Bhavabhūti of the 7th century A.D. uses the word Rājaputrī in addressing Kausalyā where the same sense is intended, viz., not the daughter of a king; but merely a high-born Kshatriya lady, Bāṇa in the Harshacharita similarly uses the word Rājaputra to denote a Kshatriya soldier.

First 55 of 104 passages. Read on

Linked texts (29)