Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c41.s2: The Rajputs.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c41.s2

Language
English

The Rajputs.

v3.c41.s2.1

Going on to consider the next chief caste of the Kshatriyas, we find that it also subdivided during this sub-period though not into numerous sub-sects. It could not, for obvious reasons, subdivide on the basis of town or country of residence. It had already divided itself into two main sections viz. those who cultivated and those who did not. The former were naturally considered lower in grade and the latter who were rulers of kingdoms, at least heads of villages or districts, were considered to be higher in grade. These latter were now called by distinction Rajputs a word used in inscriptions of this period to denote the ruling Kshatriyas generally (e.g. E. I. XIV p. 159 Ballālasena insc. जहिर राजपुत्राः). They were first looked upon as even higher than Brahmins, as shown in Vol. II (p. 178). This higher status of the Rajputs described by Arab travellers of the preceding century is not mentioned by Al-Beruni who, as often stated before, speaks more from Hindu law books than from actual observation. Or it may be that during the period of Mahomedan invasions many of the Panjab Rajput ruling families were destroyed; and when the Gāhadavāla king Chandra drove the Mahomedan oppressors out of northern India and reconstituted the Kshatriya caste, it naturally assumed its position as defined in the Hindu Śāstras, viz. next to that of the Brahmins. Yet they were considered equal to the Brahmins in all respects as Al-Beruni himself admits that their degree is not much below that of the Brahmins. Thus they were allowed to study the Vedas and did study Veda and Śāstra and we have already seen how noted kings such as Bhoja and Govindachandra were as learned in the sacred and profane lore as the most learned Brahmins.

v3.c41.s2.2

In the usual manner, the Rajput or ruling families of India constituted themselves into a sub-section about 1100 A. D. by the enumeration of the orthodox pure Kshatriya ruling families of the time. In this enumeration Panjab remained naturally excluded, being then entirely under Mahomedan rule; and there indeed were no ruling Kshatriya families then in the Panjab. The Himalayan ruling families also did not come in the enumeration for another reason which we will notice later on. The South Indian ruling families were also excluded as they were apparently not considered of pure Aryan race and of Kshatriya descent. The Kshatriya families ruling in Mahārāshtra were, however, included as they had continuous marriage relations with the ruling Kshatriya families of Northern India. The number of these Rajput families was found to be 36 and this number soon became traditional, as we find it mentioned in the Rājatarangiṇī of Kalhaṇa of 1159 A. D. Which were these 36 families in the beginning it is difficult to determine, as no unquestionable list of that date has come down to us. We have treated the list in the Rāsā as contemporaneous with Prithvīrāj though the Rāsā in its present form is undoubtedly to be placed in the 16th century A. D. (vide Vol. II p. 70) and we will examine in a note how that list represents the correct political condition of the country about 1100 A.D. It may be noted that by this enumeration the surnames or family names of the several clans further acquired importance and the gotra of each family, although each had its separate gotra, gradually became of no value even in matters of marriage. Indeed inscriptions of this period often look upon the clan name as gotra itself e. g. Guhila gotra, Pratihāra gotra etc. (See also Vol. II p. 177).

v3.c41.s2.3

In the Rāsā list firstly the Senas of Lakhnauti are conspicuous by their absence and this supports the view that their power in Bengal was established later than 1100 A. D. Next we note that all ruling families of South India viz. Gangas, Cholas, Pāndyas and Keralas are also not in the list. The only explanation seems, as stated above, to be that their claim to pure Kshatriya origin was not admitted as they had no marriage relations with the Kshatriyas of Northern India. The ruling Kshatriya families of Mahārāshtra occupying an intermediate position geographically, naturally came to occupy an intermediate position racially. We have already said that the Śilāhāras are the only truly Maratha family which finds a mention in the list of the 36 royal clans (p. 247). As to the Chālukyas and the Rāshtrakūtas of the Deccan, though they are, according to our view, distinct from the families of the same name of Northern India, their inclusion in the 36 under the same names can not be denied. But it is remarkable that the Kadambas of Goa are not mentioned among the thirty-śix. We have uncontested evidence that two princesses from this family were married into the Gujarat Chālukya family during this sub-period.* Probably the Rajputs of Northern India gradually confined their sub-caste to Northern India and refused to continue marriage relations with Kshatriya families of Mahārāshtra,† as these families had marriage relations with Non-Aryan ruling families of South India also. The Maratha Kshatriyas, consequently, after this period, including the Śilāhāras, became a separate group or sub-caste and they too had their own enumeration of 96 Maratha families to which marriage was thenceforth confined.

v3.c41.s2.4

∗ The Kumārapāla Charita mentions such a marriage in the verse कर्णोपि कर्णटृपाङ्ग-जायाकार पाणिग्रहणं जयायाः ।; it also mentions Karna's marriage with a Kashmir princess कणय काश्मीरपतिः स्वपुत्रीं प्रेषिदथो मैणळदेविनाम्नीम् ॥

v3.c41.s2.5

† Karna Vaghela declined for example to give his daughter to the Yadava king of Deogiri about 1300 A. D.

v3.c41.s2.6

The Rajputs from Western Himalayas formed a third group which became a distinct sub-section, not only on account of its isolation but also of certain marriage customs peculiar to them. In the Himalayas then survived and still survive marriage customs of ancient India by which the higher castes could take wives from lower castes, the caste of the progeny being unaffected viz. that of the father. We find thus, even now, three grades of Kshatriyas in the Himalayan region adjacent to the Panjab viz. Rajputs, Rāṇas or Thakurs and Rāthis. The Rajputs take girls from the Thakurs and these from the Rāthis but do not give them their girls. The Rajputs of the Himalayan region, however, though they have old mixed marriage customs still prevalent among them, are pure in race as the Rāthis are not Mongolians but Aryans, are in fact Kshatriyas lower in grade only because they follow agriculture. They further allow Karewa or widow remarriage which is prohibited to the Rajputs as to Brahmins and Vaiśyas. Full information is given in "Castes and Tribes of the Panjab" relating to minor sub-divisions of the Rajputs of the Himalayan region amongst whom the Katoch are the leading family with the Maharaja of Lambagram at their head. But the names of the several Sūryavaṅśi and Chandravaṅśi families of the highest,* middling and lowest grades with names based chiefly on place of residence such as Jammuwāl, Guleria, etc. it is not necessary to give here in detail.

v3.c41.s2.7

In the Panjab itself the Kshatriyas of the western parts were mostly forcibly converted to Mahomedanism in the days of Mahmud and of Shihabuddin and these do not now use or even like the name Rajput, though they still preserve old Kshatriya clan names of Mahābhārata or Greek days such as Yaudheyas (Johiyas), Anavas (Janjuas) etc. and still observe certain Hindu customs such as calling a Brahmin at the birth of a child or at marriage. In the eastern parts, Rajputs are still found but they are immigrants from lands further east and south in Mahomedan times, as they use the orthodox clan names from the list of the 36 royal clans such as Paramāra, Chauhan, Tuar, Rathod, Kachhwāhe, &c.; and these have still marriage relations with the Rajputs of Delhi and Rajputana. The Panjab and the land of the Sarasvatī as also Pānchāla was the ancient land of Brahmins and Kshatriyas and all Brahmins and Kshatriyas in the east and south of India came originally from this region. It, therefore, follows that Paramāras and Chauhans, Rathods and Kachhwāhas are clan-names which originally must have come from the Panjab itself in ancient times. Or these names which do not find a mention in the Mahābhārata may have come into existence in the south and the east, in the middle land and in Rajputana, in the sixth century or later, among Kshatriya clans driven out of or leaving the Panjab under stress of Kushan and Hūṇa invasions. Certain it is that most of the names of clans in the list of 36 are not found in the Mahābhārata; and as they are found in the eastern parts of the Panjab at the present day, these Rajputs must have gone from the south. Local tradition also supports this inference as the Rajputs of Eastern Panjab believe that they came there from the Delhi region and from Rajputana in Mahomedan times. These Rajputs, therefore, cannot be treated as a separate group and must be included in the Rajputana group.

v3.c41.s2.8

∗ The Miyans are the highest, a name taken from the Mahomedans, Miyan meaning the most respected.

v3.c41.s2.9

Thus we have three sub-sections of the Kshatriyas of India; subsections which probably came into existence between 1100 to 1200 or 1300 A. D. viz. 1st the Rajputs of the 36 clans inhabiting Rajputana, Gujarat, Kathiawar, U. P. and Eastern Panjab; 2nd Rajputs of Western Himalayas and 3rd the Maratha Kshatriyas. These three groups do not intermarry and do not interdine and they may, therefore, be looked upon as real sub-castes with their usual restrictions. Though the sub-castes of pure Kshatriyas thus are only three, there are numerous other sub-castes who claim to be Kshatriyas and whose existence probably goes back to our sub-period. We may, of course, include those Kshatriyas who are considered lower in grade because they follow the occupation of agriculture, the Rāthis for example of the Himalayan region and the Marathas of the Deccan. The words Rāthi and Maratha probably have a common origin viz. Rāṣṭra* which shows that they form the country, being the common people or the settled agriculturists and must be distinguished from the Śudras or labourers. The description by Al-Beruni of the four castes, however, indicates that while the Rajputs or Kshatriyas were treated as equals of Brahmins, the agricultural Kshatriyas and Vaiśyas had come to be looked upon as not much superior to Śudras, being prohibited the study of the Veda. Besides these agricultural Kshatriyas, there were other sub-castes which also claimed the rank of Kshatriyas and which must have come into existence in this sub-period such as Bundellas, Raghuvansis &c. though we have no positive written evidence about their claim. The tendency of Hindu society at all times in India is to establish various sub-castes which usually claim to be included in the higher varṇa nearest to them.

v3.c41.s2.10

∗ The word Rāṣṭrika in Aśoka inscriptions is explained by Smith as meaning inhabitants of Western Ghats but the word may indicate these Rāthis of the Himalayan region also.

v3.c41.s2.11

The Kshatriyas of South India claim to belong to solar and lunar races also. They form a separate sub-caste which we have not taken into consideration in the above enumeration. So far as we have seen, we have not found in inscriptions an example of a South India Kshatriya marrying a northern Kshatriya princess. The Dravida warrior clans were no doubt treated as Vrātya Kshatriyas by the Manusmṛiti and the Purāṇas support their solar and lunar race origins. The Āndhra Kshatriyas are called Rāju-a Sanskrit word-and Vellala. It is unnecessary to go further into the status of the Kshatriyas of South India as we have not found the subject discussed at length anywhere.

v3.c41.s2.12

NOTE:-THE 36 RULING FAMILIES OF KSHATRIYAS.

v3.c41.s2.13

We have held that the list of 36 ruling families of Kshatriyas was made during the reign of Chandra Gāhadavāla who is said in inscriptions to have rehabilitated the Solar and Lunar Kshatriya races. This king ruled from 1080 to 1100 A. D. and the 36 families then enumerated must have been actually ruling at that time. We have not got the original list; but two ancient lists, incomplete and rather incorrect, are given by Tod viz. the Rāsā list and the Kumārapāla Charita Sanskrit list (the other two given by him seem to be later as they contain undoubtedly later names). If we compare these two lists they appear to be copies from the same original list. Let us see how they agree and differ.

v3.c41.s2.14

| Rāsā List. | Kumārapāla-Charita Sans. List. |
| Ravi | Ikshvāku |
| Śaśi | Soma |
| Yadu | Yadu |
| Kakustha | X |
| Paramāra | Paramāra |
| Sadāvara | X |
| Chauhan | Chauhan |
| Chālukka | Chālukka |
| Chhindaka | Chhindaka |
| Silāra | Silāra |
| Abhīra | X |
| Doyamata | { Makvāna |
| Makvāna | |
| Chapotkaṭa | Chapotkaṭa |
| Parihāra | Parihāra |
| Dhānyapālaka | Dhānyapālaka |
| Rājyapālaka | Rājyapālaka |
| Nikumpa | Nikumpa |
| Hula | Hūṇa |
| Guhila, Guhilaputta | Ohila X |

v3.c41.s2.15

From the note of Gaurishankar on this list we find there are some eight or nine names which are found in the Kumārapāla-Charita list which were omitted by Tod and the three out of which found in the other list are,

v3.c41.s2.16

| Rathod | Rath. |
| Kārattapāla | Kārattapala |
| Aniga | Anaga. |

v3.c41.s2.17

There are many names in both lists which are now unidentifiable; and even Tod could not identify them. Moreover the identification by Tod of some is unquestionably mistaken, as it could not but be, in the absence of the epigraphic evidence which we now possess. We proceed to show how this list, especially that in the Rāsā, correctly depicts the political state of the country and its Rajput kingdoms about 1100 A. D. We take the identification of names made by us in Vol. II.

v3.c41.s2.18

The first five namely Kakustha (Kachapaghāta), Paramāra Sadāvara (Tomara), Chāhamana, Chhandāka (Chandella) are the well-known kingdoms of Gwalior, Malwa, Delhi, Sambhar and Bundelkhand described in this volume. The sixth Silāra is the Śilāhāra kingdom of Thana. The seventh Abhiyara or Ahira kingdom has not been located by Tod but it must have been in southern India. Chapotkaṭa and Parihara were the kingdoms of Anhilwad and Kanauj which had just passed away but there still must have been small kingdoms remaining such as that of Mandawar of the Pratihāras.

v3.c41.s2.19

The Guhilot kingdom of Mewad was well known as also the small kingdom of the Guhilas in Mangrol (Kathiawar) already described (p.301). The Yadus under whom come now Yadavas, Bhattis and the Jādejas and Chudāsamas of Kathiawar were represented then by the Yadavas of Biana and Mathura or Mahāban. The Bhātis of Jaisalmere are not mentioned in this list because probably they were not then in Jaisalmere which according to tradition was founded in 1157 A. D. (Gaurishankar’s Tod p. 224) and the latter two were not yet established in Kathiawar and Cutch which were then under the Chālukyas of Anhilwad. The Tānks had a kingdom at this time at Kāsht-ha on the Jumma as pointed out by Tod. They are not, according to our view, descendants of Takshaka Nāga as many imagine. The Hūnas had a kingdom at Badoli on the east coast of the Chambal opposite Bhaisroda "where in a beautifully carved temple there is a Hūna Vivāha Mandapa." (Gaurishankar’s Tod). The Gaudas or Gaurs have nothing to do with the Senas of Bengal whose power was established in Bengal itself later than 1100 and who are consequently not mentioned in this list. They came from Guda or the country about Thanesar and they had at this time an extensive kingdom about Ajmer which was taken from them by the Chauhans as tradition recorded by Tod states. (This tradition is not believed by some). The Badgujars also were a powerful ruling family then and were in possession of the country round Amber with Rajpur as their capital and from this they were dispossessed by the Kachhwāhas according to another tradition recorded by Tod. They are mentioned in the Rāsā list under the name of Garua which certainly is the Prakrit form of Gurjara. Nikumpa lastly had a kingdom at that time in Khandesh as an inscription noted by Gaurishankar dated 1153 A. D. proves. They had also a small kingdom in Jaipur territory. Nikumps, therefore, unlike the Silāhāras are both Northern India and Southern India Kshatriyas. Among the Marathas their name is now pronounced Nikam.

v3.c41.s2.20

Besides these, we have of course the mention of Rathod or Rāṭh and Rājapala, the leading kingly families of Kanauj and Monghyr, while the Kalachūri Haihayas of Chedi are also included in the Rāsā list. What ruling families the other names indicate it is difficult to decide and neither Tod nor Gaurishankar or Mohanlal Pandya has been able to ascertain. The Dāhimas were well-known and as descendants of Dadicha Rishi are mentioned in inscriptions; but the name given in the Rāsā list is Dadhishat. This amśa is detailed in an inscription dated 1000 A.D. in the Kansern temple in Parbatsar Dt. Jodhpur State (E.I. XII p. 61). They were feudatories of the Chāhamanas of Sāmbhar. They migrated from Thalner on the Godavari to Marwad, and held Parbratsar, Jalor and Sanchor up to 1300 A.D. "Chhacha (the insoriptor) was a ruling prince and not an Ādā Rajput (ditto)," Kārat-tapāla, however, are not Kathis and Kathis had no kingdom in Kathiawar about 1100 A. D. Nor can Jats be mentioned in the list as they never were looked upon as Kshatriyas, nor had they any kingdom at this time. In the absence of historical evidence we can only say that the remaining names of ruling families are not yet ascertainable.

v3.c41.s2.21

KĀYASTHAS.

v3.c41.s2.22

The Kāyasthas who claim to be of Kshatriya origin find frequent mention in the inscriptions of this sub-period. They can be included in the Kshatriya varṇa though they form an intermediate caste according to the Smṛitis. The Kāyasthas were writers by profession and hence as writers of inscriptions they are constantly mentioned. They too seem to be divided at this time into sections according to their country of residence, like the Brahmins; for we have mention of a Gauḍa Kāyastha in an inscription dated 1000 A.D. (E. I. XII p. 6); the word anvaya is not used here; but where it is used it indicates the family such as Naigamānvaya of Bijolia Insc. (Bengal J. R. A. S. LV p. 40) or Gauḍānvaya of Siwalik pillar Insc. (I. A. XIX p. 218). It may be noted that we sometimes come across Kāyastha writers in inscriptions from southern India, as in the Konkan insc. of Aparāditya. The tradition among the Kāyastha Prabhus of Konkan that they came there from Northern India in later days may be reconciled with this mention of Kāyasthas in about 1100 by holding that these are represented now by the Davane Kāyasthas.*

v3.c41.s2.23

VAIŚYA.

v3.c41.s2.24

The Vaiśyas also split into sub-divisions during this sub-period, following the example of Brahmins, on the basis of habitat. There is no mention, however, in the records of the period, of the names of the modern 84 sub-divisions of the Vaiśyas of Northern India. There are some family names such as Prāgvātānvaya or Kārāpaka Vamśa (Bijolia Insc.). There is also a mention of Poravāla and of Modha (I.A. XI p.72), Modhānvaya-prasūta-Mahākshap.; but the word anvaya added shows that they were family names and not names of sub-castes. These Vaiśyas were often Jains and hence perhaps the sub-sections were not endogamous. In the south and in the Himalayan region, there were Vaiśyas who were Śaivas; the temple of Baijanāth in Kangra is stated in its inscription to have been built by two Vaiśya brothers; and the Lingāyat Vaiśyas in the south are well known as Vīraśaivas.

v3.c41.s2.25

∗ The word Prabhu is added in this inscription to a minister's name and not to the name of the Kāyastha writer.

Linked texts (8)