History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c28.s1.68

v2.c28.s1.68

This evidence, however, of long standing tradition is sought to be impeached on the ground that when these Rajput clans were transformed from barbarians into orthodox Kshatriyas about the sixth or seventh century A.D. they took these gotras from their Brahmin Purohitas; and the rule as given in the Sūtras that the Kshatriyas are to use their Purohitas' gotras (पुरोहित-प्रवरो राज्ञाम्) is quoted in support of this view. Now this is another example of how wrong ideas arise by misconception among ourselves and how such misconceptions of some of our own Pandits lead astray western scholars and antiquarians. The author of the famous commentary Mitāksharā on Yājñavalkya Smṛti has indeed wrongly laid down the maxim that the Kshatriyas have no gotras of their own and that they are to use the gotras of their Purohitas. This comment of Vijñāneśvara on the text of the Smṛiti making marriage of Dvijas or Aryans outside the gotra alone as valid has now-a-days become generally accepted and European scholars naturally resort to it when they explain the mention of gotras in inscriptions by Kshatriya kings. But the mention of gotras by kings in inscriptions cannot have been of any importance if these gotras of the kings were adventitious and were to be borrowed from their Purohitas and were liable to be changed with the change of Purohitas. The Chālukyas of Badāmi for instance and the Pallavas of Kāñchī would not have cared to record in every grant they made मानव्यसगोत्राणां चालुक्यानाम् and भारद्वाजसगोत्राणां पल्लवानाम्, if these gotras were not their own. The rule of the Sūtras (पुरोहित-प्रवरो राज्ञाम् ) has evidently been misinterpreted by Vijñāneśvara and we have not the smallest doubt that the Kshatriyas of ancient days had and the Rajputs of modern time have gotras of their own. When, therefore, in ancient records we find mention of gotras we must hold that the Kshatriyas must have mentioned the gotras from pride in mentioning their gotra showing their descent from Aryan ancestors. Nay in ancient times the gotra was the only method of distinguishing families and Brahmins and Kshatriyas mentioned their gotras both from pride and from necessity to distinguish their families as we mention the surnames now-a-days which are in fact derived from gotras themselves. Thus in an inscription on a Torana at Barhut we have गार्गी पुत्तस विसदेवसपुतेन गोपत्तस अगराजस पुतेन वछी पुतेन धनभूतिना कारितं तोरणं which Cunningham has translated as follows "Gateway erected by king Dhanabhūti born of the queen of the Vatsa family, son of Agarāja son of queen of Gota (Kautsa) family and grandson of king Bisadeva son of queen of Garga family." Here the different gotras of the queen-mother, grand mother and great grand-mother are honourably mentioned with the object of showing that the queens in the several generations were also of Aryan gotras. But Cunningham here observes "Queens among Rajputs are still known by their family names. These names are gotra names. The explanation of this fact is that 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.