Till
modern era, the human settlements of Indian subcontinent saw various religious revolutions.
As a result, the societies had and continue to have distinct rituals and
religious orientations. Still in the census of British India, the majority
population of it got classified as a Hindu. The earliest reference of word
“Hindu” comes in the Persian (Iranian) literature of 6th century BC
where it is used as ‘geographical identity” for the human groups living beyond
the mountain ranges of Indus valley. Very similar to the Persians, the Greek
literature refer the people of this land as Indus. In 4th century
BC, the officer of Alexander’s army, Nearchus, recorded the history of this
land in the form of Indica. The word was very much unknown to the people of subcontinent
till the Mughals arrived and settled here. Mughals termed the land as Al-Hind
and Hindustan (the territories of Hind) in their literature. Although,
Hindustan is now commonly used for the entire ‘Republic of India’, for Mughals
it was the land ranging from the Himalayas to Vindhyas, the population of which
spoke a set of similar dialects, now known as ‘Hindi’ i.e. the language of Hind.
The Britishers simply carried from the point where the Mughals and Greeks left.
They referred the land as ‘India’ and ‘Hindustan’ and to religiously segregate
the people following religions like Christianity and Islam, they termed rest
population as ‘Hindu’ in the census process. Truly Hinduism is never a religion
in itself but just represents the people of Hind who do not follow organized religions
like Christianity, Islam and so on. Even though, the entire Hindu populations
do not observe the same set of rituals, still a large chunk of them, the three
upper castes of a given region, follow a defined set of rituals under the
influence of Brahmanism.
The religion of Brahmanism is one the most organized branches within Hinduism. The unique feature of Brahmanism is Varna or the caste system. After 9th century AD, when different human groups started integrating with the Brahmanical fold after fall of Buddhism, lots of complexities were created in the Varna system. These complexities resulted in the creation of many myths justifying the social status of a particular group in the society of that region. Many such myths together have created mystification for the anthropologist. The confusion arises specifically when one wants to establish a relationship between the present communities with certain communities of the early and the late Vedic period. The medieval Hindu religious texts are not helpful in overcoming these complexities as they too are full of myths. However, these texts or myths sometime help to understand the undertone of society at the time of its creation. Medieval history of India doesn’t help too as it mostly confines to kings and their personal and political life. The biggest hurdle in this direction comes due to the disappearance of many ancient books as a result of the Mughal invasion in the subcontinent. Out if many such books, some have been recovered only after a long time gap. Arthshashtra, written by Chanakya, was lost by the end of Gupta Empire and was not discovered until the early 20th century. Its translation from Sanskrit to English and Hindi did not occur by 1915. Its subsequent translations into other languages did not take place until the 1920s and 1930s. This way, the contents of Arthshastra were out of the reach of early historians and anthropologist for long period. The story is not different for King Ashoka whose Chakra is placed at the center of the Indian flag and the Lion capital of Sarnath accepted as the National Emblem of India. Ashoka was forgotten for almost 1,000 years before rediscovering to India by British archeologist in 1850s.
The
research about ancient communities, therefore, fully relies on the various
materials found during archaeological excavations and on the ancient texts that
were discovered and translated lately by various historians. The major
development in this direction took place in 1869 when the first Pali dictionary
was published from the research works of Robert Caesar Childers and in 1872
when the same was translated in English. The developments opened the path of rediscovering
the history of Buddhist India and the ancient communities preserved in Pali
literature. By the early 20th century, many historians and
anthropologists used the development in their research work. In the process,
they established a relationship between the ancient communities with some of
the present communities based on the latter’s tradition, social status and area
of habitation. Much before this, the Britishers
too tried to understand the Indian society. For this, they utilized the census
of 1865 and classified all communities on the Varna ladder according to their
social status. Throughout the classification process, they relied on orthodox
Brahmins and the Brahmanical texts as ancient Pali and Prakrit texts were not
available to them. It, therefore, resulted in Brahmanical biasness for some communities
whose essence is inscribed in the Pali or Prakrit texts. The classification was
then taken as a reference by many academicians for their research work and thus
making the biasness not only to continue but getting compounded. Even for the early
historians of Indian origin, the unavailability of Pali texts resulted in wrong
interpretations of the ancient societies or the historical figures. The best
example of wrong interpretation is ‘finding the lineage of Chandragupta Maurya’
whose life is well recorded in many Greek books, Buddhist and Jain texts and Puranas.
The inaccessibility of the ancient Pali texts and the first (mis)interpretation
of the Purana texts resulted in the lineage of Chandragupta getting traced to the
Shudra (labor) class. It should be noted that the Brahmanic texts in the form
of the Puranas are concerned only about the origin of Nanda Kings and the end
of Kshatriya rule in the country. It tells that the Sishunaga Kings are Kshatriyas
who will be replaced by the nine Nanda Kings of Shudra origin. After that
Brahmin Kautilya will uproot the Nandas and Mauryas will rule the entire earth.
Chanakya will anoint Chandragupta as the sovereign of the realm. Vishnu Purana
speaks in detail about the lineage of Nanda Kings and the way they will uproot
the Kshatriya rulers of Magadha but talks nowhere about the lineage of
Chandragupta. The wordings in the Vishnu Purana go like this -
‘Tatshach chetanandan
Kautilyon Brahman:
Samridha Rikshayati
Tekshamabha we Maurya.
Prithavi Bhogyani
Kautilya Evavam
Chandragupta Utapanna
Rajyebhishekshyati’.
The
Sanskrit act Mudrarakshasa composed around 4th century AD i.e.
nearly 700 years after Chandragupta era, refers him as kulhina and vrishala.
The act belongs to a period when Brahmanism was reviving under the Gupta Empire
with very high hostility against Buddhism and its followers. It should be noted
that by this time, the Mauryan dynasty could have been looked down by the orthodox
Brahmins as they gave royal patronage to Buddhism. Dhundiraj Shashtri, the 18th
century commentator, interpreted the meaning of vrishala as ‘son of Shudra’.
However, it is known that vrishala also means ‘the one who is vrisha among
Kings, the best of Kings’. His works stretched the meaning of kul-hina
and
shows the birth of Chandragupta from the illegitimate relationship of
the Nanda
King with his servant Mura belonging to the barber caste. In true sense,
kul-hina
means ‘of low origin’ and Vishnu Purana nowhere mentions the origin of
Chandragupta
from the Shudra class. Dhundiraj Shashtri’s misinterpreted version
remained the
only source of Chandragupta’s lineage before the Pali texts were
translated
into English and Hindi. The translations resulted in new insights about
the Mauryan
dynasty. Much before the compilation of Mudrarakshasa and even 200 years
before
the birth of Chandragupta, Buddhist and Jain texts record the presence
of Maurya
community belonging to Kshatriya Varna in the vicinity of the Gorakhpur
district
of Uttar Pradesh.The Buddisht text Digha Nikaya refers the Mauryas as
"Kshatriyas of Pipphalivana" and one of the republic states.
- The Mahaparinirvana Sutta says that they claimed the relics of Buddha from the Malla of Kusinara due to their Kshatriya (Khattiya) origin. The Mauryas send the following message -
Atha kho
Pipphalivaniya Moriya
Kosinarakanam Mallanam dutam pahesum,
bhagava pi khattiyo mayam pi khattiya,
mayam pi arahama Bhagavato
sari- ranam bhagam,
mayam pi Bhagavato sariranam thupan ca mahan ca karissamati.
- According to Mahavamsa, Chandragupta was a Kshatriya whom Chanakya cowned as King after defeating the Nanda dynasty. The wordings go as -
‘Moriya na
khsatriya na vanshe
janta siridhara
Chandragupte triyajunt
Chanyako brahmane tanton’
- The Divyadana describes Bindusara, son of Chandragupta, as Mudhardabhishakt Kshatriya. The wordings are -
Tavan nayani aham raja kshatriya
Mudhardabhishakta
kantha tha saadhi sa samagamo bhavishayati’
- The Jain text Punyashrava
Katha Kosh mentions Chandragupta as Kshatriya.
The word Vrishala, used
for Chandragupta in Sanskrit act Mudrarakshasa, is a Sanskrit version of ‘Veselious’
who was the King of Yunan. The title was given to Chandragupta after he
defeated King Seleucus of Yunan and established the matrimonial alliance with
his daughter Helen. The following Sanskrit phrase says that the word Vrishala
is used for gunjan (Garlic), Shudra and the King Chandragupta.
‘Vrishalo gunjane
shudre chandragupte cha rajani’
Other
than the Pali texts, the life of Chandragupta was recorded by various foreign historians
and some are quite important in establishing the origin of the Nandas and Chandragupta.
I.
From Curtius of 1st
century AD: Porus reported to Alexander that the present Nanda King was not
merely a man originally of no distinction, but even of the very meanest
condition. His father was in fact a barber who became the queen’s paramour and
encompassed the assassination of the King by treachery. Then later acting as a
guardian to the royal children, he usurped the supreme authority and having put
the young princes to death begot the present king who was detested and held
cheap by his subjects.
II. From Diodosus: Porus
informed Alexander that the King of the Gangaridai (Magadha) was a man of quite
worthless character and held in no respect, as he was thought to be the son of
a barber.
III. From Plutarch:
Androkottas (Chandragupta) himself, who was then but a youth, saw Alexander
himself and afterwards used to declare that Alexander could easily have taken
possession of the whole country since the King was hated and despised by his
subjects for the wickedness of his disposition and the meanness of his origin.
IV.
From Justin in the 2nd
century AD while commenting on the Greek work of 1st century BC:
India, after Alexander’s death, as if the yoke of servitude has been shaken off
its neck, had put his prefects to death. Sandrocottus (Chandragupta) was the
leader who achieved its freedom. He was born in a humble life but was promoted
to aspire to royalty by omen. By his insolent behavior he had offended Nandrus
and was ordered to be put to death when he sought safety by a speedy flight.
In
all the above accounts, no one talks about the lineage of Chandragupta except
Justin who tells him of humble origin. Also, Chandragupta never saw him linked
with the family of Nanda’s as he himself reported the ‘meanness of Nanda King’s
origin’ to Alexander. Other than these accounts, the view of Chanakya is
important in deciding the lineage of Chandragupta. His works in Arthshastra
clearly point that he was a strict follower of Varnashrama. He preferred a high
born king even though weak and powerless over a King of low birth with great
power. His argument is that the people of their own accord welcome a prince of
noble lineage and are prepared to follow him out of their natural regard for
the greatness that springs from birth and character. Therefore, it is highly
unlikely that Chanakya will prefer a Shudra boy to lead the entire nation of
his dream [1]. Further the Jain texts show Chandragupta marrying
Dhurdhara, the daughter of Dhana Nanda, and therefore raising her status from
the Princess of Magadha to the Queen of Magadha. The archaeological evidence shows
‘peacock’ as the dynasty emblem of the Mauryas. The Asoka pillar at Nandangarh
(Bihar) bear the figure of peacock at its bottom (below the surface of the
ground) and the same figure is repeated in several sculptures on the Great
Stupa at Sanchi [2]. The evidence therefore supports the lineage of
Chandragupta from the Mauryas of Pipphalivana who were Kshatriyas. Based on this
information, which was available by the early 20th century, it is
clear that how a wrongful interpretation in 18th century resulted in
controversy over the lineage of the first great Emperor of India. Moreover, it
looks like that the deteriorated social position of Maurya titled populations,
who are found in eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, gave natural inclination in early
historians when they made attempts to understand the lineage of Chandragupta.
The access to ancient Pali texts happened only
after 1872 AD, but before that in 1865, the Britishers did the census to
capture and define the position of each caste/community in the Hindu society.
Undoubtedly, the process left a great room for Brahmanical biasness in the Britishers
about various communities of the Hindu society. This resulted in wrong
interpretation and classification of some communities on the caste scale and
that included descendants of ancient Mall, Maurya and Shakya tribes. Here, an
attempt has been made to understand the origin of certain communities whose
title consistently figured in the ancient Buddhist and Jain texts. As the lineage
of Mauryan King Chandragupta has been already discussed, the discussion will
begin with Maurya community which shares similar title as that of Chandragupta.
7.1 Maurya Community click here to continue reading......
********************************************************************************************************************
********************************************************************************************************************
References:
[1] Mookerji,
R. (1966). Chandragupta Maurya and His Times. (4th Ed.). pp. 5-16.
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
[2] Kumar,
R. (2008). Encyclopaedia of Untouchables: Ancient, Medieval and Present, p.
151. Delhi: Kalpaz.
*******************************************************************************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************************************************************************
Index Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10
Give your feedback at gana.santhagara@gmail.com
If you think, this site has contributed or enriched you in terms of information or knowledge or anything, kindly donate to TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL online at https://tmc.gov.in/
and give back to society. This appeal has been made in personal
capacity and TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL is not responsible in any way.
********************************************************************************************************************
********************************************************************************************************************