Guest guest Posted June 8, 2001 Report Share Posted June 8, 2001 INDOLOGY, Michael Witzel <witzel@f...> wrote: > >> (It may come as a shock to some that the official language > >> especially regarding royalty-- of this only remaining Hindu > >> Kingdom abounds in Urdu words, including even the ceremonial > >> verbs used for/by the King) > > >-Arun Gupta : > > >Why should it come as a shock ? It is common knowledge that the > >royal classes of India, with few exceptions, were a support of the > >Islamicate, and later, the British rule. > > >You are free to interpret the abolition of royalty and their privy > >purses by PM Indira Gandhi as yet another Hindutva scheme. > > Well, the point was of course not Mrs. Gandhi (can we ever stick to the > topic?!) but Nepalese language: > > * Nepal was and continues to be a fiercely independent Hindu kingdom. It > never was under the British, nor under the Moghuls. Nor anybody else (if we > forget a 3-week(!) invasion by the Sultan's forces in c. 1347 and a > largely unclear situation with regard to the Tibetan empire for some time > in the 8th c.). Dear Dr. Witzel, Nepal's final Sanskritization and political consolidation was possible only because of a large-scale migration of defeated Hindu princes and their followers in the wake of Islamic and Mughal conquests of North India. These Aristocrats carried with them the war techniques (which aided in the political consolidation) as well as the court culture of the Mughals with them in to insular Nepal which included aspects of the Urudu/Persian language predominance. Even Prithvi Narayan Shah who hails from a predominantly Magar region claimed Rajput origins and even after almost 200+ years of this families existence at the top echelon of Nepal's aristocracy, we can still see the Magar 'physical features'. So not only were the Indian origin princes taking their Mughal era culture with them, it is even possible that local ruling elites claiming Rajput origins (for legitimacy) also consciously copied every aspect of this culture. Raveen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2001 Report Share Posted June 8, 2001 I am afraid, a too simple view of medieval / recent history: >Nepal's final Sanskritization and political consolidation was >possible only because of a large-scale migration of defeated Hindu >princes and their followers in the wake of Islamic and Mughal >conquests of North India. This is the legend cultivated by some ... (also, Grierson in his Linguistic Survey is too simple here: Nepali, Kumaoni, etc. etc., up to Bangani, belong to the Pahari group of NIA languages which have no direct relation with Rajasthani languages) Well before the Moghuls we have a strong, (archaic) Nepali-speaking (inscriptions, copper plates!) Malla kingdom in W. Nepal and in the adjoing areas of W. Tibet (12-13th century, see already G. Tucci). This was followed by the small 22/24 "kingdoms". Gorkha is just one of them. Its history can be read in English in Father Miller's (SJ!) book. (These Jesuits do research after their term of teaching is over). >These Aristocrats carried with them the war >techniques (which aided in the political consolidation) as well as >the court culture of the Mughals with them in to insular Nepal which >included aspects of the Urudu/Persian language predominance. See above. The Newari speaking Malla kings of the Kathmandu Valley adopted culture in the same way (Maithili poetical speech, dramas etc. in the early middle ages, but Mughal culture later on : no 'defeated princes' here!) As I said in my original post: the dominant culture of the area has its influences. >Even Prithvi Narayan Shah who hails from a predominantly Magar region >claimed Rajput origins and even after almost 200+ years of this >families existence at the top echelon of Nepal's aristocracy, we can >still see the Magar 'physical features'. You are right that Gorkha was originally a Magar (Tibeto_Burmese speaking) area. Virtually all Ksatriyas (chetri) have intermarried with the local populations. (The Ranas preferred Tamang concubines). >So not only were the Indian >origin princes taking their Mughal era culture with them, it is even >possible that local ruling elites claiming Rajput origins (for >legitimacy) also consciously copied every aspect of this culture. The local Himalayan aristocracy (Thakur, Chetri etc.) goes back at least to the Nepali speaking (Khas) immigrations out of the west (SE of Kashmir valley, Kha'sa land) around the beginning of the 2nd millennium CE. See: Nepalese Hydronomy: Towards a history of settlement in the Himalayas. G. Toffin (ed.) Nepal, Past and Present. Proceedings of the Franco-German Conference. Arc-et-Senans, June 1990. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers 1993, pp.217-266 Of course, there were others (Tib.-Burm.) before, as the Rajatarangini tells us about the Kali Gandaki area, or as copper plates from the same area tell us for c. 1000 CE. All of this, plus some escaped Rajput princes, perhaps, -- like the Gandharan Sahi in 1020 CE Kashmir-- were acting in a continuum, constantly re-arranging themselves from valley to valley. Mono-lateral explanations are, as always, just too simple. Cheers, MW> ======================================================== Michael Witzel Department of Sanskrit & Indian Studies, Harvard University 2 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge MA 02138, USA ph. 1- 617-496 2990 (also messages) home page: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm Elect. Journ. of Vedic Studies: http://nautilus.shore.net/~india/ejvs/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.