|
Chandravardayi (12th century A.D.). This shows that these
theories are a concoction of 2nd century B.C. to claim
superiority over the foreigners like Greeks, Parthians and
Scythians or may be that theory of divine origin is a gift
from the Achaemenians who claimed the right to rule by the
grace of Ahur-Mazda or from Alexander the great who was hailed
as son of Amon by the priest of the shrine of the. God Amon Ra
(a sun god) in the Sahara desert.
The second theory is that the Rajputs
belonged to a foreign stock. This theory was propounded by
James Tod who was the greatest admirer of their virtues but
could not believe that this heroic race of Rajputs could
belong to India. He was followed by A.M.T. Jackson, J.
Campbell, Baden Powell, Wiliam Crooke, D.R. Bhandarkar, P.C.
Bagchi and following him, R.S. Sharma. Two Europeans have
remained very discreet. J. Kennedy thought that Chauhans,
Solankis and Gahlots had Indo-Scythic or Gujar origin, the
Rajputs of Punjab were of Brahmana stock whereas Rajputs of
Uttar Pradesh originated from Brahmanas, Bihars (aborigines)
and Ahirs (foreign tribe of Abhiras) but thinks that majority
of them were Aryanised Sudras. Vicent Smith Agreed with Crooke
that fire-pit origin mentioned by Chandravardayi was a cover
for purifying the foreigners as Rajputs but about the clans
beyond Rajputana and Gujarat he is of the opinion that they
sprang from aboriginal tribes like Gonds, Bhars, Kols etc.
C.V. Vaidya thought them to be Vedic Kshatriyas because they
fought for Vedic religion, believed in solar and lunar origin
and the anthropometric measurements taken in 1901 substantiate
their Aryan descent. G.H. Ojha accepted this theory and
believed in the merger of Scythians, Kushanas, and Huns (among
them the Huns were latest stock of the Aryans to arrive).
Dasharatha Sharma believed that the warrior clans whether
indigenous or foreign passed as Kshatriyas and they were the
Rajputs of early medieval period. A.C. Banerjee thinks that by
the time Rajputs came into field the ancient tradition of
classification according to profession had broken down and
that is why explanation had been given by courtier Brahmanas
for their origin.
The present author (J.N. Asopa) has dealt
with this issue in detail. He has traced the clan names of the
Rajputs so also of others and has established that these
nomenclatures are simply geographical and have nothing to do
with mythical origins. For example he has connected Panwars
with Pragvata or Pourorai of Ptolemy (2nd century A.D.),
extending on both sides of the Aravalis near Abu; Chalukyas or
Salukyas or Chalikis (6th century A.D.) with river Saiki
coming out from Khondmals hills in Orissa; Gurjara (referred
to in Pancfiatantra of 5th century A.D.) pratiharas Juzrs
(referred to by Arabs in 7th century A.D.) with river Jozri
flowing below Merta and Jodhpur in western Rajasthan;
Chahamans (8th century A.D.) or Sambharia Chauhans with
Sambhar lake in the center of Rajasthan; Guhilas (8th century
A.D.) with the guhila (forest territory lying between river
Guhia flowing below Sojat Road and river Mahi flowing near
Galiakot; Gauds with ancient Gauda desa in Haryana Dahias or
Dahimas with Dhadhimati – kshetra (referred to in an
inscription of 289 probably of Gupta era=609 A.D.) in Nagour
district of Rajashtan; Bhatis with Bhatiya desa (1000 A.D.) or
Bhatinda in Punjab; Chapotkatas (8th century A.D.) or Chavadas
with Bhinmal in south western Rajasthan; Chandellas with
Chanderi in Madhya Pradeshy Kachhavas with eastern rann (Kachchha)
of Chambal in Madhya Pradesh; Rathors with Lat between Narbada
and Tapti in southern Gujarat and ; Kalachuris with Kalvun
near Nasik in Maharashtra. He has traced the three big stocks
of Aryans viz. Ikshvakus from laxartes (of the Greeks) now
called Jexates in Central Asia, and Ailas from river Hi
flowing much north of Jexartes in Central Asia, and
Agnivanshis to the Agnikona or south – eastern corner of the
Aryan land but lying in the north-west direction of India. On
each one of them the author has made independent studies and
then come out with a conclusion that Rajput is a corrupt from
of the Vedic word rajaputra which has been used as a synonym
of rajanya in Rigveda, Yajurvedic Kathaka Samhita, and
Aitareya Brahmana of the Rigveda. In Purusha – sukta of
Rigveda Rajanya is used for the generic class of warriors. It
has been used in the same sense in Atharvaveda but Manu has
used the word rajan in place of rajanya. The term rajan means
endowed with kingdom whereas Rajanya means belongings to rajan.
The word Kshatriya meant scion of one endowed with kingdom.
But difference was made in Kshatriyas and rajanyas in
Kaushitaki Upanishad (8th B.C.). It is said there that Soma
(king) is eating the Kshatiyas and Vaishyas respectively with
his two mouths, Brahmana and rajanya was used for the nobles
and their scions whereas Kshatriya was in vogue for the
warrior class in general. In the light of this Upanishadic
reference the meaning of the three terms used separately at a
time in Satapatha Brahamana becomes meaningful. There Rajputra,
Rajnaya and Kshatraputra, these three terms are mentioned
separately. The rajaputras (sons of the kings) were entitled
to only quivers, and Kshatriyas were holding simply clubs.
Thus as early as 1000 B.C. a difference was made between
rajaputras, nganyas and Kshatriyas.
In Mahabharata (2nd century B.C.) the word rajaputra has been
used for the nobles and warriors (Kshatriyas) at different
places; the work Kshatra has been explained at two places in
two places in two different ways by Sayana – in the commentary
of Taittiriya Brahmana he has explained it as domain. By the
time of Sayana the second meaning had become obsolete and the
persons holding the land thought it to be a generic term for
warriors and wore the new title of rajaputra to show their
connection with the ruling class. This word has been
continuously in use; Kautilya (4th century B.C.) in his
Arthashastra has used it for sons of the king. Asvaghosha in
Saundaranada. St Century A.D.) Has used it in the sense of
nobles and so has done Kalidasa in his Malavikangnimitra (in
4th century A.D.) – Banabhatta (7th century A.D.) has used it
for nobles in Harshacharita and for the scions of the nobles
in Kadambari. It is in this sense that the word rajaputra or
its corrupt form Rajput became current in early medieval
period, i.e. 650 to 1200 A.D.
The rise of the Rajputs and the establishment of their
Kingdoms is an important event in the History of India. After
the fall of the Vardhana Dynasty, there was a prolonged
absence of a strong central power and the centripetal
tendencies dominated the political horizon. Many republics,
nobles, foreign tribes like Indo-Greeks, Sakas, Kushans,
Pahlavas, Huans, Kshatriyas and Brahmanas got involved in the
process of caring small independent kingdoms. The one that
proved victorious in this political gamble were the Rajputs –
who captured power and politically dominated different parts
of the country from the 7th – 12th century A.D. Hence this
period is known as the rapt period in Indian History.
The word Rajput is derived from Sanskrit word ‘Rajputra’ which
means the son of the King. Its extensive usage can be found in
the ancient texts. References of Rajputra can be tracked back
to the Rigveda, Yajurveda where it is used as a synonym for
Rajan, Rajanya Kshatriya – those associated with chivalarous
tasks, battles, defense and administration. This term is also
used in Arthasastra of Chanakya, Dramas of Kalidas,
Harshcharita and Kadambari of Banbhatt. Even Hieum – Tsang the
Chinese traveler, who visited India at the time of Harsh
Vardhana, refers to the Kings as Kshatriya and Rajputra.
These men of the ruling class came from different walks of
life and different corners of India. For example Yuan – chwang
(7th century A.D.) called Harsha Fishe (Vaishya). In
Aryamanjushrimulakalpa (8th century. A.D.) He has been said to
belong to Vaishya family. Yuan – chwang has not mentioned the
word rajaputra because he was describing only the rajas and
not their sons. He has mentioned their generic social milieu
as he knew, for example Pulakesi of Deccan and Dhruvabhata of
Gujarat have been called Kshatriyas. In Rajatarangini the word
rajaputra has been used in the sense of land-owners but in the
same chapter they have claimed their birth from the 36 clans
of the Rajputs. It would lead one to the conclusion that by
the end of the twelfth century A.D. the notion of thirty-six
clans of the Rajputs had become well known and these lists
varied according to the information of the author, his locale
and time. There is one more title rauta, which is still later
corrupt form of rajaputra. This was a title of the landlords
and nobles but all of them were not rajaputras or Rajputs. In
Chandella inscriptions we have Brahmanas and Kayasthas adored
with this title. In Rajasthan of modern times we have Rivals
among Khandelwal Vaishyas and also a community known as Ravats
whose profession is to make plate of leaves (pattal) for
dining purpose. It is only the Rajputs or scions of nobles who
later became a caste and not all the landowners who got a
title Rawat by grace. As all the landowners were not Rajputs,
in the same way all the Kshatriyas were not Rajputs. All the
rulers in ancient India were not Kshatriyas nor all the
Kshatriyas were actually ruling. Visvarupa, the commentator of
Yajnavalkya says it clearly that the title of dominion (rajya)
does not belong to every Kshatriya. All the rulers were called
rajans and their relatives were called mjaputras. Thus in
actual application rajaputra and Kshatriyas did not always
coincide. The ruling classes intermarried with rulers of
foreign origin also. In ancient times Chandragupta Maurya had
married the daughter of Seleucos Nikator. Saka Rudradaman
married his daughter to a Satavahana prince and himself had
won the hands of number of princesses in Svayamvaras. In the
post-classical period Harichandra Pratihar of Mandor, who was
a Brahmana, married a Kshatriya Bhadra whose sons passed as
Rajputs. All this does not substantiate the theory of foreign
origin.
The theory of the foreign origin of the Rajputs can be
substantiated only on one basis i.e. that the Aryans in the
hoary past came to India from Central Asia and as most of the
Rajputs contain Aryan blood they are foreigners. The mixture
of the aborigines cannot be denied on the basis of
anthropology but no dynasty can be historically proved to have
had developed from an aboriginal tribe into a Rajputs clan.
The question arises: what was the historical milieu of all the
Rajput clans? The source material for the same is not
available. However, the present author has traced the origin
of 15 clans about whom some source material is available.
Though geographical basis of clan is common to all, in some
cases even social milieu could be traced. He has traced the
Paramaras, Chalukyas, Pratiharas and Chahamanas to
Agney-Brahmanas; Guhilas and Chandellas are also traced to
Brahmanical origin; Mauryas and Kalachur are traced to ancient
Kshatriyas whereas the ancient social milieu of the Gaudas,
Dahimas, Bhatis, Chavaras, Gahadvasa, Rathors and Kachhawa is
said to be untraceable before their passing as Rajputs though
their original home which is the cause of their name has been
traced. The author in his support has brought to bear the
evidence iiot only of ancient Indian writers but the
contemporary authority of Arab scholar Ibn Khurdadha who was
the author of Kitabul-Masalikwa-Mamulik (912 A.D.). He has
differentiated between the ruling classes, Sabkurifa and
Kshatriyas old known as Katarias. He said that Subkurifa
(Arabic rendering of Sudshatriya) was the highest clan from
which the rulers were selected. For Kataria he says that the
people of this clan drank only three cups of wine. Their
daughters could be married to these Katarias. It is quite
clear that the ruling class as composed in the postclassical
period distinguished themselves from the Kshatriyas who had
lost their kingdoms long back. Though these two words were not
coined by the Muslims as shone above yet Qanungo says that
there is no epigraphically or literary evidence down to 1000
A.D. to indicate definitely the use of the word Rajput to
denote a class or caste. He, however, says tat this word might
have been in official use. A.K. Majumdar agreed with the view
that Rajput has been derived from the term rajaputraka but was
wavering in his using the word rajaputraka in the sense of
Rajputs; Mt. Abut inscription (1230 A.D.), speaking of
rajaputras of illustrious Rajputra clan; and Merutunga (1305
A.D.) describing 100 Rajputras of Paramara clan. To this list
can be added Rajatarangini of Kalhana (1200 A.D.) and Chittor
inscription of 1301 A.D. The Chittor inscription is a clear
evidence of the fact that by the close of the fact that by the
close of the 12th century the Rajput class has converted into
a caste. In this inscription the donor, his father and
grand-father all have been classed as Rajaputra and the ruling
noble has been called Maharajakula in addition to being called
a Rajaputra suggesting thereby that the first was the title
and the second was a caste appellation. Kalhanaas
Rajatarangini also describes the Rajaputras claiming origin
from 36 royal clans.
We can thus conclude that Rajaputras were a class upto the
classical period, and from Harsha’s time up to the time of
Prithviraja Chauhan, besides two Kshatriyas clans of Mauryas
and Kalachuris, many non-Kshatriya groups – six groups of
Brahmans, one foreign tribe of Hunas and five non-descript
people whose ancient social milieu is not known with certainty
entered in to Rajput group and later became clans of this
caste. This survey would lad one to the conclusion that
Rajputs were a class up to the Rajput period in c. 1200 A.D.
and became a caste only after the Turks entered the political
field and refused to be Aryanised. For the first time a
stumbling block came in the way of the Rajputization of the
rules and the practice fell into abeyance and even the local
Hindu rulers after that had to be content with power but could
not be included among the Rajputs as the Chaturvarnya system
received a great set back at the hands of the unbelieving
Turks who had brought new society and religion with them.
History of the Solar and Lunar Origin
The Vedic literature did not have any conception of the clans
originating from the sun or the moon. It is only after the
foreign invasions of the Greeks, Parthians, Scythians and
Kushanas, that the idea of divine origin originated in India.
The story of Mahabharata was written and rewritten so many
times before 2nd century A.D. that it could incorporate many
foreign ideas – One such idea was to claim superiority on the
basis of diving origin. The Greeks met with this idea in Egypt
where Alexander the Great was hailed as son of Amon by the
priest of the shrine of the god Amonra (a sun god) in the
Sahara desert. The Kushanas learnt this practice from the
Chinese and called themselves Daivaputra or son of the Divine,
and Kanihka had the appellation Chentan which Sylvan Levi has
accepted as a variant of Chand or Chandra. He further says
that the tribal name Yue-chi also meant moon people. Thus the
idea of belonging to sun or of divine origin was foreign to
Indian tradition. We do not get this conception before the
Mahabharata which was recast upto 2nd century A.D. The
Buddhist Jatakas compiled in 3rd century B.C. do not have an
inkling of this idea. The Puranas compiled in the classical
period and re-edited up to the Rajput period are full of such
conceptions. To explain this new phenomena the scholars have
come for-ward with different theories.
Pargiter believed that the solar people belonged to the south
and were Dravidians whereas the lunar belonged to, the north
and inhabited Prayag on the conjunction of Ganga and Jammu.
C.V. Vaidya has rejected this theory. He is of the opinion
that they were two different hordes of the Aryans who entered
India, one after another from an unknown country north of
India. He says that the first horde came and settled in
Sapta-sindhu and the present representative of their language
are the people who speak Punjabi, rajasthani, western and
eastern Pahadi and eastern Hindi. The second horde penetrated
the earlier settlements and settled in the area of present
western Hindi and spread up to Nepal in north – east,
Kathiawar in south-west and Jubbulpur in the south. He
considered the first stock to be dolichocephalic or
long-headed and the second to be brachy cephalic or broad –
headed. He comments that these two races were known as solar
and lunar races to Mahabharata and later literature. Moreover
he identifies the Bharatas of Manu Svayam – bhuva’s line with
the Rigvedic Bharatas and says that in the epics Turvasas, the
Anus, the Druhyus and Purus described in the Rigveda as
belonging to the second horde. As the latter horde came in
conflict with the first they were looked with abhorrence in
the Rigvedic hymns and when they settled down blessings were
invoked for them also.
To summarize the information given in his article, we can say
that the brachyephaly of North – West Frontire is measurd to
the extent of 76.8% and is aking to Pamir, that of Nepal comes
to 82% and is akin to Tibet and of Chittagong in the
Bangladesh comes to 77% and is akin to Malaya. The Mesocephaly
of Gujarat and Maaaharashtra comes to 75% and is akin to Iran
and this stretched to Bengal through the valleys of Narmada
and Son. The Nordics whose cephalic index is below 75%
continued to thin down from Kashmir to Bihar by intermixture
with the Dravidian and sometimes the hyperdolichocephals known
as Proto-Australoids and Austrics. The Dravidians were
dolichocphals known like the Nordics but they had evolved out
of hyper – dolichoelphals and extended from Kanya Kumari to
Kamakhya in the east and from Cuttack to Kashmir following the
Ganga Jamuana route towards west. The Proto – Australoids
remained in the interior from river Godavari to the Khasi
hills and their hyper-dolichocephaly was found reduced after
they settled in the plains due to ecology. We are immediately
concerned here only with the first two. C.V. Vaidya is of the
opinion that the Nordics came to India first and were later
known as of solar origin. The arguments given by him are as
under. He says that the Bharatas of Manu Svayambhuva’s were
called of solar race because in Rigveda Manu is called son of
Vaivasvata or the sun. Then he says that on the basis of
Nirukta, Bharata also means sun. We have certain difficulties
in his identification. Firstly the mythological Bharata is
nowhere mentioned as a scion of Manu Vaivasvata and it is the
lkshvakus of Manu Vaivasvata’s line who are known belonging to
the solar dynasty. Then we have no means to identify Manu
Svayambhuva with Manu Vaivasvata – Second hypothesis given by
C.V. Vaidya is that they ruled in the east, hence they were
called the descendants of the sun. The third surmise of C.V.
Vaidya is that they were so known because they followed the
solar calendar. For lunar origin he has advanced the following
arguments. Firstly, as opposed to the sons of the sun they
were called sons of the moon. Secondly, they were called Soma-vamshis
or of lunar stock. Thirdly, they were called so because they
followed the lunar calendar.
P.L. Bhargava has given another argument. He says that the two
words are simple translations of the names Vaivasvata and
Soma. Ikshavakus, according to tradition, are in the progeny
ofIkshavaku, son of Manu who was son of Vaivasvata which is
one of the synonyms of sun and Ailas are in the progeny of Ila
and Rishi Budha, son of Soma which is one of the synonyms of
moon and thus the poetical translations have been taken to
absurd limits. Translations of proper names were popular
amount the authors of the Puranas e.g. in Vayu Parana
Chandragupta alias Devagupta has been called Devarakshitta and
Kumaragupta has been referred to as Guha which is an epithet
of Kumara or Kartikeya. Thus the original names before us are
Ikshvakus and Ailas. In our opinion they were simply
geographical appellations. Ikshumati was the name of a river
in Kurukshetra mentioned in Mahabharata and Harivamsha. In
Ayodhyan – kanda of Ramayana there is a reference that
reporters sent by Vasishtha from Ayodhya crossed the river
Ganga at Hastinapur, crossed Panchala and Kurujangala
territories and reached the pious and paternal river Ikshumati.
This river is also referred to by Strabo. He quotes a
tradition, probably preserved by Appolodorus that Menander
crossed the Hypanis (Beas) and reached the Isamus (Ichchhumai
= Ikshumati). It was a river between Beas and Jamuna. The same
author mentions another river by the name of laxartes (Jaxartes)
in Central Asia. As Central Asia is suggested as the original
home of the Aryans by Maxmuller on the basis of philology we
are of the opinion that this laxartes was the original
Ikshumati and home of the Ikshavakus and when they settled in
India between Beas and Sutlej they gave the same name to
another river in India and the author of the Ramayana has
called it their paternal river. In Sanskrit literature the
latter river has been described under various names as
Ikshumati, Ikshumalavi and Ikshenised transcription of
Ikshvavarta i.e. the territory of Ikshu. After this Central
Asian river Ikshu the horde living here was called Ikshavaku
and he was son of Manu and grandson of Vaivasvata and the
absurd translation of Vaivasvata as sun at the hands of the
authors of the Puranas led to the theory of the solar origin.
In the same way Ira is the name of a river in Punjab referred
to in Mahabharta, Harivamsha and Vishnu Purana. By interchange
of the vowels and 1 in Sanskrit it could also be pronounced as
Ila. Its full name Iravati ultimately changed into Ravi. Then
in Ramayana we have reference to a place Aila on Shatadru (Sutlej).
Bharata in his journey from Kaikaya country crossed Shatadru
at Aila. It would suggest that on the west of the Ikshuvakus
on Ikshumati in Haryana there was the territory of the Ailas
between the rivers. It indicates that the second horde
followed the first in India after some time. In India they
first fought their battles in this land and settled here. But
like the first horde they had also come from Central Asia. In
U.S.S.R. there as a river known as Hi which falls in the lake
Balkash. Thus Ili seems to be the home of the second horde.
C.V. Vaidya on the basis of the Puranas says that Pururava,
king of the second stock, once ruled in Gandhamadana north of
the Himalayas. Dowson in his Dictionary of Indian Mythology
has identified Gandhamadana with Ilavritta i.e. the territory
of Ila. It is an indication of the fact that the so-called
moon people or Ailas hailed from Ilavritta or the territory of
Ili. In historical period we have another argument for our
support. The Yue-chi people were once living on the liver
Tarim near Pamirs. When they were made to leave this territory
by Wu-sun people a large number of them settled in the basin
of Hi and a horde travelled towards India. Sylvan Levi says
that the word Yue-chi in their language probably meant moon
people. Moreover in Chinese rendering of Kalpana – mandikita
of Kumaralata Kanishka has been called Chentan Kianicha.
Sylvan Levi is of the opinion that this is a variant of Chanda
or Chandra. Thus in Buddhist literature Kanbishka has been
given an appellation Chandra and his forefather lived on Ili
and in Brahmanic literature Soma – vamshis or the moon people
have been called Ailas. It seems that Aila was a geographical
appellation of the people living on Ili and later by some
mythology they were connected with lady Ila who was formerly
man and then because woman and had an intercourse with Rishi
Budha, the son of Rishi Soma and their progeny after Soma was
known as Soma – Vanshi and later translated as Chandra-vamshi
or moon people. Thus we are of the opinion that they are two
stocks of the beautiful white race, one inhabiting the
Jexartes in the plains and another living near Pamir and then
migration to Ili before coming to India. The first stock was
probably dolichocephalic and the second was brachycephalic and
with the fashion of adopting divine origin in first or second
century A.D. one became solar race and another lunar. |
