Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c42: Appendix

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c42

Language
English

Contents

Appendix

v3.c42.1

I. SOME CRITICISMS ANSWERED.

(1) Dr. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar on Agnikulas.

v3.c42.s1.1

Dr. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar in his Journal of Indian history (April 1925 pp. 123-124) endorses our view about the Gotra and Pravara of Rajputs and agrees that our position is sound. He, however, expresses his dissent from our view that the Agnikula tradition is a myth and says that it goes back to centuries earlier than even the Rāsā. We have maintained in Vol. II that the myth arose after the Rāsā, from a wrong construction of its story. The doctor refers to a mention, in a Tamil poem of Sangam date, of a chieftain born in Agnikula. But we have shown that the Paramāra tradition always was that their first hero was born from the sacrificial fire of Vasishtha. But even the Paramāra was known as a solar-race Kshatriya being born from Vasishtha's fire and inscriptions of this sub-period (1000-1200 A. D.) nowhere mention three Rajput vamśas solar, lunar and fire-born. We have already shown the importance of an inscription of the Gāhadavālas wherein Chandra is said to have resuscitated Rajput vamśas which are said to be solar and lunar only (p. 221). And Chandra probably enumerated the 36 Rajput royal families. It is, therefore, certain that in the Mediæval Hindu period only two vamśas of Rajputs solar and lunar were known.

v3.c42.s1.2

Secondly, Dr. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar refers to the tradition of Pratihāras being born from Lakshmaṇa as known in the south and mentions that the Pallavas were also said to be born from Vishnu's brother. But the Doctor forgets that he is arguing here against himself. If he believes that the tradition of Pratihāras being descended from Lakshmaṇa is well founded, then there is no jumping to the conclusion that the Agnikula tradition is a myth as the conclusion becomes irresistible and itself jumps on us; for the Pratihāras being really Suryavamśi can not be looked upon as Agnivamśi. Indeed the Agnikula tradition has no basis in history, being unknown to inscriptions of this period, all the four Agnikula families Chauhan, Paramāra, Pratihāra, and Chālukya being described in inscriptions as solar or lunar. The Marathas in the Deccan have no Agnikuli among them, though they have Chauhan Paramāra, Pallava and Chālukya among them.

(2) P. Gaurishankar on Gotras of Rajputs.

v3.c42.s2.1

Rai Bahadur Gaurishankar Ojha of Ajmer, on the other hand, believes the Agnikula tradition to be baseless but holds that the gotras of the Rajputs are not indicative of their descent, but of their discipleship. In short he follows the dictum of Vijnāneśvara laid down in his Mitāksharā (c. 1100 A. D.) that Kshatriyas have no gotras of their own but have to take the gotras of their purohitas. In his paper in Nāgari Prachāriṇī Journal Vol. V, No. 4 (p. 435-443) he holds that the gotras of the Rajputs were always taken from the purohitas upto the period they observed Vedic ritual; but "now even that is given up and now the gotra of the Rajput and his purohita are different". This itself is wrong for the Rajput still performs Vedic ritual and there is no reason why the gotra of the purohita should be different from that of the Rajput. We have given the arguments which show that Rajputs had always gotras of their own and that Vijñāneśvara's dictum is wrong, in Chapter V, Vol. II. The arguments advanced by P. Gaurishankar against our view are: 1st, that in the Saundarānanda Kāvya of Aśvaghoṣa, Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma are shown as taking different gotras from their different gurus and the Śakyas similarly took Gautama gotra; 2ndly, that in inscriptions we have instances of Rajput families having changed their gotras. How both these arguments are ineffectual we proceed to show.

v3.c42.s2.2

The fact that Kshatriyas have gotras of their own appears from the ancient Vedic Sūtras dating from before 200 B. C. as shown by us in Vol. II and this is our strongest argument. To quote against this Vedic authority a story given in a Buddhist poem of about 200 A. D. has not much value. Indeed this is a question of Dharmaśāstra and must be decided on Dharmaśāstra and particularly Vedic authority. As will appear from the Śastric opinion obtained recently by us and attached hereto, the Vedic Sūtras distinctly hold that Kshatriyas have gotras of their own.

v3.c42.s2.3

The Buddhist tradition that Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma had different gotras because they had different purohitas is absurd and is not known to Hindu Purāṇas. The guru of both was Sāndīpini of Ujjain as stated in Harivamśa and Bhāgavata. Secondly, it is not true that Śrīkṛṣṇa's gotra was Gautama as stated in Saundarānanda (Patrikā p. 439) and that of Balarāma was Gārgya. Śrīkṛṣṇa's gotra must be Atri as his descendants the Chuḍāsamas and others have that gotra still. The statements in the Saundarānanda are on their face absurd and may even be interpolations. We know that the Buddhists made many misrepresentations of Hindu traditions (e. g. they stated that Sītā was wife and sister of Rāma); and one cannot attach any value to this Buddhist poem in this connection.

v3.c42.s2.4

Nor is the historical argument of Pandit Gaurishankar sound. The instances of change of gotra are all found in inscriptions later than the 12th century and were all influenced by Vijñāneśvara's dictum. Vijñāneśvara's authority being generally respected is still wrongly influencing the Rajput community. But we have quoted in Vol. II inscriptions dating from before the Christian era wherein Kshatriyas mention their gotras. And the Chālukyas of the Deccan and the Pallavas of South India never fail to mention their gotras. Mānavya and Bhāradvāja, in inscriptions which date as early as the sixth century. If these gotras were not their own but were those of their purohitas, they can never be expected to have been mentioned in inscriptions. And indeed inscriptions of later times distinctly mention that the gotra-rishi is the progenitor of the Kshatriya clan as we go on to show in detail.

v3.c42.s2.5

Let us take the four supposed Agnikula clans first: 1 The Paramāras are distinctly said to belong to Vasishtha gotra because they were born from his fire and not because Vasishtha was their purohita. In the Udepur Prasasti we have वसिष्ठगोत्रोद्भव एष लोके ख्यातस्तदादौ परमारवंशः. And this gotra still continues in this clan even among the Marathas. 2 The Chāhamānas are Vatsagotri. In one inscription the first Chāhamāna is said to be born from Vatsa Rishi's tear; and in the Bijolia inscription the first Chāhamāna is said to be born from a Brahmin of Vatsa gotra (or in the gotra of Vatsa Brahmin or Rishi). Vatsa is not his purohita. 3 The Pratihāras are said to be born from a Pratihāra Brahmin and in another place from Lakshmaṇa brother of Rāma. (Their gotra has not been ascertained). 4 The Chalukyas are said to be born from Droṇa's chuluka and hence of the Bhāradvāja gotra as stated distinctly in a Kalachuri inscription. In fine, these four Rājput clans are born in the gotras they invariably claim upto now; and the inscriptions referred to above are all of a date anterior to Vijñānesvara. His dictum was clearly then unknown.

v3.c42.s2.6

Turning to Rājput clans which are lunar, we find that their gotra is usually Atri and Atri is no doubt their progenitor being the father of the moon according to the Purāṇas. This fact is distinctly stated in the inscriptions of the Kalachūri Haihayas and of the Senas. The Yādavas, the Chuḍasamas and the Jādejas also give Atri as their gotra and this is true by the theory of descent and not discipleship.

v3.c42.s2.7

The solar Rājputs no doubt present a difficulty. The Guhilots of Mewad, the Kachhwahas of Jaipur-Alwar and the Rathods of Jodhpur-Bikaner are solar race Rājputs and their gotras are respectively Baijavāpa, Mānava and Gautama. Now in the Vamśāvalis given from Mānu the names of these Rishis do not come in. We have, however, shown in Vol. II that many Brahmin gotra Rishis are Kshatriyas such as Hārita, Gārgya, Mudgala and others. We have, however, no tradition in the Purāṇas to hold that Baijavāpa, Mānava and Gautama were solar or lunar Rājarshis. For all that we know, they may be. But the most plausible explanation seems to be that these clans, when they became distinct in most ancient days, attached themselves to these Pakshas for ritual practice and were in effect adopted into these families, and therefore they have these gotras and Pravaras. The expression in the Purāṇas that Hārita and Mudgala attached themselves to the Paksha of Angiras shows this clearly and in one place they are called even sons*. It was by adoption and not by discipleship that these gotras were taken in ancient times. For the theory as well as the fact is that if a different Purohita is taken, the gotra does not change but remains the same. Therefore, the theory of some is that the gotras of these Rājput clans were taken in very ancient times from their Purohitas; but these once taken cannot be changed at any subsequent time (see the opinion quoted below). This is in a sense adoption and this is the reason why the gotras of the Kshatriya clans have remained unchanged for centuries. Gotra and Pravara, like the Veda and Śākhā which the clan took up in ancient times for the performance of ritual in accordance with it, cannot change at any subsequent change of purohita.

v3.c42.s2.8

∗ हरितो युबनाश्वस्य हारिताः सूरयः स्मृताः । एतेऽङ्गिरसः पुत्राः क्षत्रोपेता द्विजातयः ॥

v3.c42.s2.9

Gotra and Pravara amongst Brahmins cannot change and they indicate descent and not discipleship; why should they indicate a different thing among Kshatriyas? This difficulty, as also the fact that even in ancient inscriptions, Kshatriyas mention their gotras with pride and hence they could not have been borrowed from purohitas led us first to our view and we discussed it with two learned Pandits in Jaipur, Madhusūdana Śāstri (Maithila) and Vīreśvara Śāstri (Telanga), and on their agreement propounded it with confidence in our second Volume. As doubts have since been expressed in many quarters, we quote below their written opinion specially obtained for this volume.

v3.c42.s2.10

१ श्री जयपुर वै० शु० ५ रवौ सं. १९८२ सन्ति ब्राह्मणानामिव क्षत्रियस्य वैश्यस्य च प्रातिस्विकानि गोत्राणि नेति प्रश्ने उत्तरम्। दर्शपूर्णमासादियाग प्रकरणस्य आर्षेयं वृणीते इति विधौ कल्पसूत्रकाराणां सांप्रतिके ग्रन्थान्ते च प्रकरणे प्रवरनिर्णायकसूत्रेषु गोत्राणां वर्णनस्य क्षत्रियवैश्यसंबन्धेन बहुशो विद्यमानत्वेन सन्ति तयोरपि प्रातिस्विकगोत्राणि। याज्ञवल्क्यस्मृति-व्याख्यायां मिताक्षरायां तद्भावकथनं तु प्रबलहेतुनिर्देशेन न विश्वासार्हमेषामपि तथोपवर्णनं तदनुयायित्वेनेति त्यक्तव्यमेवेति मन्यते द्राविडो

v3.c42.s2.11

वीरेश्वरशास्त्री

v3.c42.s2.12

२ श्री क्षत्रियौका उत्पत्तिदृष्ट्या गोत्र मनु है और वैश्योंका भलन्दन हैं. क्षत्रियोंके जो भारद्वाजवत्सादि गोत्र प्रसिद्ध हैं वे पूर्वकालमें उनके प्राचीन पुरोहितोंसे प्राप्त हुवें हैं. ये अब बदल नही सकते. क्योंकि नया पुरोहित करना मना हैं. हालमें पुरोहितोंका गोत्र इसी सबबसे भिन्न हैं. यह पुराणे पिढीयोंसे चला हुवा गोत्र एकतन्द्से प्रातिस्विक गोत्र होगया हैं क्योंकि वह बदल नही सकता.

v3.c42.s2.13

सम्मतोयमर्थो जयपुरस्थस्य राजपण्डितस्य मधुसूदनशर्मणो जयपुरस्थानम् ३०।३।२५ विद्यावाचस्पतेः

v3.c42.s2.14

These two opinions proceed on different grounds but come to the same conclusion. Vīreśvara Śāstri bases his opinion on the Sutras and distinctly says that Vijnāneśvara's dictum is wrong. Madhusūdana Śāstri says that the gotras were taken from Purohitas in most ancient times and cannot now change and thus they may even be looked upon as Prātisvika (their own). He thus avoids the above mentioned difficulty, of explaining how the solar Kachwahas of Jaipur have Mānava gotra. The difference of gotra, therefore, indicates difference of clan. The Guhilas of Bhavanagar are different from the Guhilots of Mewad and the Rathods of Jodhpur-Bikaner are different from the Rathods of the Deccan.

Linked texts (4)