Do Kings have to be Kshatriya?: From Rajatranagini

[Guest guest]

When Shivaji wanted to become a sovereign king, a chhatrapati, an

objection arose that since he was not a Kshatriya, he can not be

king. This event has been discussed widely.

 

It seems that had Shivaji lived earlier, the objection might not

have risen. There is noting to indicate that being a descendant of

the ancient Kshatriyas was a requirement for becoming a king in pre-

Islamic India.

 

Rajatarangini of Kalhana is a rare chronicle that gives us a fairly

direct insight into how things happened in pre-Islamic India. It

gives a long account of kings of Kashmir.

 

I tried to locate the origin of all the Hindu rulers of Kashmir.

Here is what I found.

 

The first king of Kashmir Gonanda I was a relative (bandhu) of

Jarasasamdha of Magadh (Rajatarangini I 59). We can take that to

mean that he belonged to the same family.

 

Skipping over "lost kings" we come to Lava of an unknown family.

After his family, Godhara of another family (anya-kulodbhavah) ruled

(I 95).

 

We now come to Asoka who built many stupas, and his son Jalauka,

presumably Mauryas. Then after a Damodara ("of Asoka's kula or

another"), we have Hushka, Jushka and Kanisha, obviously the

Kushanas. After an Abhimanyu, we come to the main Gonandiya dynasty,

founded by Gonanda III. He was (I 191) the first (aadyah) of his

race, ("like Raghu was for the Raghus"). Nothing is known about his

origin.

 

His family ruled for many generations. Eventually a Pratapaditya, a

relative of Vikrmaditya (not the Shakari; II 6) became king. After a

couple of generations a Vijaya (from another family: anya kulajo II

62). His son Jayendra was followed by Sandhimat-Aryaraja who had the

soul of Jayendra's minister Sandhimati.

 

After him, Meghavahana of the Gonandiya family was brought back from

Gandhara. His family ruled for a few generations. Meghavahana was a

devout Buddhist and he prohibited animal slaughter in his domain.

 

Placed within the two periods of Gonandiya rule are Mihirakul and

Toramana, we know that they were Huns, but that is not noted by

Kalhana. There is some confusion about timing here.

 

With Karkota dynasty, we are on firmer ground. Gonandiya Baladitya

made his ashva-ghasa-kayastha named Durlabhavardhana (officer in

charge of fodder: III 489) his son-in-law because he was handsome.

Now Durlabhavardhana was really son of a Naga (a divine being)

Karkota (III 490) who had cohabited with Durlabhavardhana's mother

while she took her bath. Lalitaditya-Mukipada, the great conqueror

was born in this noble family.

 

In the Karkota family, Lalitapida had a concubine, a daughter of a

Kalyapala (IV 678). Her some was Chippatajayapida. The young

Chippatajayapida was advised by his maternal uncle Utpalaka or

Utpala (IV 679). Eventually Karkota dynasty ended and a grandson of

Utpala became king.

 

After the Utpala dynasty, a Yashaskara became king. (V 469). He was

a great-grandson of a Viradeva, a Kutumbi (V 469). Here I think

Kutumbi = kunabi (as in kurmis of UP and Kunbi of

Gujarat/Maharastra). He was the son of a treasurer of Karkota

Shamkaravarman.

 

After a young son of Yashaskara, Pravaragupta, a Divira (clerk),

became king. His son Kshemagupta married Didda, daughter of

Simharaja of Lohara. After ruling indirectly and indirectly, Didda

placed Samgramaraja, son of her brother on the throne, starting the

Lohara dynasty.

 

The Lohara family was founded by a Nara of Darvabhisara (IV 712). He

was a vyavahari (perhaps merchant) who along with others who owned

villages like him had set up little kingdoms during the last days of

Karkotas. The Loharas ruled for many generations. The author Kalhana

was a son of a minister of Harsha of this family.

 

After Loharas, a Damara family ruled. Then a general Ramchandra

became king. His daughter Kota Rani married Tibetan Rinchan, who

became Muslim.

 

Thus we have these, with a guess about their origin:

 

- Kshatriya

- Maurya

- Kushan

- Gonandiya

- Huna

- Karkota: an ashva-ghasha-kayastha, a son of a Naga divinity

- Kalyapal (liquor vender)

- Kutumbi (farmer ?)

- Divira (clerk)

- Lohara â€" Vyavahari (merchant)

- Unknown

 

As I see it, only one dynasty can be directly linked with an ancient

Kshatriya clan, and that too belonging to a somewhat pre-historical

period.

 

Note that there were quite a few Brahmins in Kashmir, in fact they

formed a powerful lobby. Occasionally some of then refused to accept

agraharas from some rulers, but they do not seem to have objected

otherwise.

 

The concept of four distinct varnas must have become obsolete even

by then.

 

Yashwant

 

Q: What happend to all non-Brahmin Hindus of Kashmir? I think they

all might have joined the brahmins.

[Guest guest]

> The concept of four distinct varnas must have become obsolete even

> by then.

 

Not really. One has to accept practical ground reality. So if Ashoka,

though technically a shudra, is an emperor - you've to accept it. It

is to be noted that Ashoka was the son of kings - his grandfather was

Chandragupta Maurya, born of a classical kshatriya and a shudra woman.

 

But if the non-kshatriya king seeks a Vedic honour, that's where the

problem comes in. So you've some brahmins dissenting on this issue.

 

It is also to be noted that historically non-kshatriya castes which

gained royal power could ascend to kshatriya status if over a period

of time they show support to dharmic causes. It cannot happen with

the first person who gains power - the family has to establish itself

both in the royal as well as the dharmic realm. The Saatavaahana king

to whom Naagaarjuna's Suhrleka is addressed, is glorified in an

inscription as the only "brahmana" in his line.

 

Castes like the Rajus in Andhra, whose connections with Vedic

kshatriyas is quite unlikely, have still gained kshatriya recognition

from brahmins fundamentally because of their adherence to the dharma.

I met a family of Rajus last year in a pilgrimage spot in Andhra -

they wear the upavita and do the sandhyaavandanam.

 

> Q: What happend to all non-Brahmin Hindus of Kashmir? I think they

> all might have joined the brahmins.

 

Yashwant, it doesn't befit a scholar of your knowledge to make such

wild claims. We need more information to asses the validity of such

theories.

 

One point to be noted in this issue is that even if "all kashmiri

Hindus became brahmins (this claim of some modern Indians is highly

dubious and has as it motive social reform)", still it doesn't affect

the brahmanical tradition in the rest of India. Brahmins control

their grouping region wise. For instance Tamil brahmins do not care

about Namboodiris of Kerala or Niyogis of Andhra and vice versa - the

lay brahmins of a particular region for most part will not even

recognize brahmins of other regions as brahmins and will not

entertain marraige relations with them. They are only concerned about

brahmins in their own region. That's how brahmins control their

grouping in every region.

 

On a related note, in the records of the Kanchi Kaamakodi Peedam, one

of the historical aachaaryaas is supposed to be from Kashmir. It is

highly doubtful that the said person would have been granted the

honour if his historical varna credentials were ambiguous.

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "ymalaiya <ymalaiya>" <ymalaiya>

wrote:

>It seems that had Shivaji lived earlier, the objection might not

>have risen. There is noting to indicate that being a descendant of

>the ancient Kshatriyas was a requirement for becoming a king in pre-

>Islamic India.

 

It's possible that at no time kshatrya castes existed. In exchange

for money, hiraNyagarbhadAnam, etc., it's possible the kshatrd

was bestowed. In today's India, for money, we get caste certificates

in govt. offices. Tamil buddhist book, Manimekalai (5th century), ridicules the

hiraNyagarbhadAnam, So also the viirashaiva work in Telugu, the

BasavapuraaNamu (13th cent.).

 

Gail Omvedt says "Interestingly, the Buddha does not here use the

common terms for the four varnas, including sudra or ksatriya;

rather it is terms that today still survive as roots for functional

occupations. All the evidence shows that the caste system, or

varnashrama dharma, hardly existed in its realized form in the

time of the Buddha".

http://www.ambedkar.org/gail/BuddhismAnd.htm

 

The nonbrahmin movement grew in Maharashtra proper, and

Shivaji heirs supported it. In fact, the reservation

in jobs policy was implemented first in India by them.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2000/03/24/stories/05242524.htm

 

Now, this quota policy for low castes seems to have gained some

support all over India (India's Silent Revolution

The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India, C. Jaffrelot,

ColumbiaUP). But there is opposite movement from high castes

to oppose quota system, and privatisation is aiding in the

process.

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan