History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c35.s15: Note—Haraprashad Shastri's Wrong View About the Origin of the Kachhwahas.
History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c35.s15
- Language
- English
Note—Haraprashad Shastri's Wrong View About the Origin of the Kachhwahas.
v3.c35.s15.1
It is indeed a pity that we have to write a special note in this volume also to refute the wrong view of a great Indian pandit as we had to write a note in the previous volume on Sir Vincent Smith's wrong view about the Chandellas. In his Report for Search of Bardic Chronicles (1913) M. M. Haraprashad Shastri writes "The Kachhwas claim descent from Kuśa son of Rāma and say that they came from Narwar which is a country of hunters (Nishāda) and anciently there was a race called Kachhapaghāta, who are probably represented by the modern Kachhawas, who are an untouchable race; but their rulers seem to have become Kshatriyas at some period". This is the most lamentable instance we have of wrong previous bias having misled even our pandits into drawing the most amazingly illogical inferences. We have already said many times that the bias of most European and a few Indian scholars is to look upon Kshatriya clans as developed out of aborigines and even untouchables or foreigners. The above is a very striking instance of how most illogical and absurd inferences are drawn through this bias.
v3.c35.s15.2
In the first place Narwar is not a country of Nishādas but Nishadhas and Nala the famous Naishadha king ruled here. Secondly, because there are untouchable people there, at present named Kachhawas, therefore it does not follow that they are the modern representatives of the Kachhwaha people named Kachhapaghātas. The Kachhawas are not the only people now in Narwar District, nor is Kachhawāha the same as Kachhwa. Further even if Kachhwas are the predominant people there, it does not follow, therefore, that their rulers must also be Kachhwas. This is the same fallacy as led Sir Vincent Smith to argue that because the Chandellas ruled among Gonds, therefore they also were Gonds. In fact, the trend of Indian history shows that Rajput adventurers going out of their original home, the middle land, founded kingdoms in distant countries inhabited by Bhils, Gonds &c. Because Bappā Rāwal ruled in a country full of Bhils, therefore it does not follow that he was also a Bhil. Because the British rule among Bengalis therefore it does not follow that the British are Bengalis. In short, the Kachhwāhas ruling in a country mostly inhabited by the modern untouchable Kachhwas does not make them originally Kachhwas.
v3.c35.s15.3
Thirdly, even granting that the names are identical, we have still to pause before we put forward the inference that the two people are identical in race. Kachhwāhas may have taken this name from the country they ruled, just as we showed in our second volume that the Gurjara Pratihāras were so called, only because they ruled in the Gurjara country, and not because they were themselves Gurjaras. Then again the Kachhwas themselves may have taken their names from their rulers. Several instances may be cited to show such taking of a higher class name by some untouchable classes. The Chamars e. g., have such names as Chauhans among them. The Sondias of Malwa have Chauhans, Paramāras &c. among them. It is, therefore, necessary to pause before making such an inference from identity of names with respect to a clan of Kshatriyas which has always been considered one of the best among Rajput clans and whose name stands first in Chand's list of 36 royal clans. And in caste-ridden India is it possible that chiefs of untouchable peoples could have risen to this high status, without any striking brilliant service in the cause of religion? Nothing is known about the supposed rulers among these untouchables, or of any great exploits which should raise them to such a high status. We cannot but conclude without expressing our surprize and sorrow at such gratuitous aspersions thrown on a well-known Rajput clan by such a learned Indian pandit.* Lastly it may be added that Kachhwāhas is clearly distinct from Kachhwa, being the Prakrit form of Kachhapaghāta. This word or its equivalent Kachhapāri both used in inscriptions should suggest that the Kachawāhas were the slayers, the enemies of Kachhwas, the aboriginal people or untouchables and not themselves Kachhwas. The origin of the name Kachhapaghāta is unknown as stated already; but if there are Kachhwas about Narwar (of which on inquiry at Shivapuri there seems to be great doubt) who are untouchables, the origin of the name becomes clear as the Kachhwāhas originally ruled in this part of the country unquestionably and it is called even now Kachhwāhaghar?
v3.c35.s15.4
∗ We are constrained to state that on inquiry from the Gwalior state Narwar Shivapur revenue officer Mr. Bhalerao we find that there are no untouchable people named Kachhawas in or about Narwar. The whole argument of M. M. Hasaprashad Shastri would then fall to the ground. His source of imformation must be inquired into.
v3.c35.s15.5
It remains to give the history of the Himalayan kingdoms during this sub-period. These were the kingdoms of Kashmir, Champā, Nurpur, Kangra, Mandi and Suket and finally of Nepal; we have already given the history of each of these states down to the end of the Hindu period so far as it has been ascertained. We will, however, restate that portion of their history which falls in the sub-period treated of in this volume viz. 1000-1200 A. D. with such additions and emendations as are necessary from recent information available from research publications, especially the Journals of the Panjab Historical Society.