History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c29.s1.14

Language: English

v2.c29.s1.14.1

The stories about the origin of founders of families usually arise from misconceptions and have always, it must be noted here, to be disregarded. When Chālukya inscriptions say that the founder of the family was born from the chuluka or handful of Bhāradvāja Droṇa, there is nothing more in the story than a poetic interpretation of the name Chālukya. Similarly, when Pratihāra is said to be a name given to the family from Lakshmaṇa who was always the door-keeper or Pratihāra of Rāma, we may treat this also to be a fictitious origin assigned to it which may safely be disregarded. Even Vedic Rishis delighted in exploiting names in this fanciful way and assigned fanciful origins to founders of family. Dr. Bhandarkar makes capital out of the story in the Vedas that Vasiṣṭha was born of the Apsaras Urvaśī whom, again, later Purāṇas represented as a gaṇikā or prostitute; but we may at once set aside such stories as poetical fancies carrying no historical importance. Vasiṣṭha and Agastya are said in the Vedas to be the sons of the twin-god Mitrā-Varuṇa who put in a kumbha or pot, his seed emitted at the sight of Uravaśī and hence Agastya is called Kumbhayoni. Bṛigu is similarly said in the Vedas to be the son of Varuṇa. Now all such legends are simply poetical and have to be omitted out of consideration. Such legends obtained even among the Greeks and other Aryan branches also, assigning strange origins to heroes and the founders of families.

v2.c29.s1.14.2

Similar disregard has to be paid to unbelievable stories which gain currency about the origin and even the exploits of founders of families who lived in historical times. It is, however, possible to find the cause of such misconceptions and false ideas and we may suggest the following reason why Bappā was looked upon as a Brahmin. As we have elsewhere shown at length, the Rajput families kept up the memory of their gotras religiously and the Udepur family gotra was Baijavāpa. It was a puzzle in *medieval times* to explain how Kshatriyas could have the same gotras as Brahmins and the puzzle continues down to this day. Though we have tried to solve the question in our note on Gotras some doubt may still be entertained by many on the subject. The latest theory of the 13th century A. D. noted by Vijñāneśvara was that these gotras were borrowed by Kshatriyas from their purohitas which as we have shown is untrue and incorrect. It appears that in the earlier centuries these gotras were explained on the theory that the Rishi of the gotra was the progenitor of the family. The Paramāra inscriptions thus say that their gotra was Vasishṭha because Vasishṭha created the first Paramāra warrior from his fire. The Chedi inscription which we have already noticed similarly professes to believe that the first warrior of the Chālukya family was sprung from the chuluka not of Brahmā but of Bhāradvāja and hence it was that the Chālukyas professed to be of the Bhāradvāja gotra.

v2.c29.s1.14.3

The case of the Chāhamāna is distinctly in point. While certain inscriptions give an independent origin, the Bijolia inscription says that there was a Brahmin in Ahichchhatra of the Vatsa gotra from whom was born the Chāhamāna king Sāmanta. Now the Chāhamānas from ancient times have professed this gotra and this legend tries to explain the gotra by supposing that the progenitor of the Chāhamānas was a Brahmin of the Vatsa gotra. But if the Chāhamānas were represented as Solar Kshatriyas in other inscriptions how can they be born of a Brahmin of the Vatsa gotra living in Ahichchhatra? This idea changed into another idea and another origin of the Vatsa gotra of the Chāhamānas is given in the Sunda hill inscription of Chāchagadeva of Samvat 1319 and therefore of the same period as the Chitoregai and Achaleśvara inscriptions. It says that the first Chāhamāna hero was born from the eyes of Vatsa Rishi himself when he threw out tears of joy. Now all these attempts are fanciful attempts to explain the gotras of Rajput families which were being made from about the tenth century and later. And it is no wonder if like the ancestor king Sāmanta of the Chāhamāna Rajputs who was said to be born of a Vatsa gotra Brahmin of Ahichchhatra, the chief ancient town of the Chāhamānas, so Bappā Rāwal was believed in the thirteenth century A. D. to be born of a Brahmin of the Baijavpā gotra of Anandpura, the chief town of the Guhilots.

v2.c29.s1.14.4

The word Mahideva must have originally meant king but it was interpreted in later times under wrong gotra theories to mean a Brahmin. As said above we have generally to discard all such theories about the founders of families whether of Rajputs or Brahmins and take as little as possible from legends which are inconsistent with probabilities.