History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c42.s1: (1) Dr. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar on Agnikulas.
History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c42.s1
- Language
- English
(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.