At the eastern end of the peninsula Orissa saw the rise of the Shailodbhava dynasty in the late eighth century, the origins of which were said to have been linked to the Pulinda people, who were generally regarded as outside caste society. That they were integrated into caste society is evident from a later king having performed an ashvatnedba sacrifice. The Bhaumakaras, who were impressive patrons of Buddhism, were replaced through the conquest of the area by the Somavamshis in the tenth century. The subsequent conquest of Kalinga by the Gangas was an extension to their base in Andhra. The establishment of the Gajapati dynasty is associated with a high point in the regional culture of the east.
Rajputs
During the ninth and tenth centuries a number of Rajput clans became prominent as independent dynasties ruling over kingdoms. Their origins have been much debated, some arguing for their descent from central Asian migrants, perhaps the Hunas or possibly the Gurjaras, although this argument is now generally doubted.
Recent discussions of Rajput identity are related to processes of historical change characteristic of this period, particularly the widespread phenomenon of families from varied backgrounds rising to royal authority. Some traced themselves back to brahmans, presumably those who had received grants of land from existing kings. This enabled them to claim a brahma-kshatra status, a familiar term frequently linked to those who claimed a brahman and kshatriya ancestry, or who were brahmans performing kshatriya functions. Such dynasties had been known earlier in the peninsula. A high administrative office could also facilitate an upwardly moving status as had happened in earlier periods. Others could have been conquered forest clans, whose erstwhile chiefs managed to acquire kshatriya status, or at least assisted a clan to create a kshatriya status for itself. Yet others may have been descendants of clans that had earlier consdtuted the chiefdoms and oligarchies in Rajasthan, although the evidence for this remains uncertain. The association of some kshatriyas with groups regarded as outside caste society – what are sometimes termed ‘tribal peoples’ – such as the Pulindas, Bhillas, Shabaras, Meenas, Medas and Ahirs, suggests that these kshatriyas were helped by such groups in their rise to kshatriya status, or may even have had some kinship connections with them.
Subsequently their origin was linked to royal lineages that accorded them kshatriya status, upon which they have unfailingly insisted. In order to establish their claims to being kshatriya in keeping with the tradition of the Puranas, they were provided with genealogies that latched them on to either the Suryavamsha or solar line, or to the Chandravamsha or lunar line. They were among those who could be counted as the new kshatriyas, although they are not mentioned as such in the Puranas. These genealogical connections revived links with epic heroes as well. Thus, among the Suryavamsha or those claiming to be of the solar line, kings claimed descent from the lineage of Rama, and consequently some enemies, local or distant, were also referred to as Ravana. Dynasties in previous periods had ruled irrespective of their caste status, being accepted by virtue of their leadership qualities. But now those who ruled made a point of asserting that they were kshatriyas.
Bardic tradition holds that there were thirty-six Rajput founding clans, but the list varies from source to source. Among the Rajput clans, four claimed a special status. These four – the Pratiharas or Pariharas, the Chahamanas, more commonly called Chauhans, the Chaulukyas (distinct from the Deccan Chalukyas) also known as the Solankis, and the Paramaras or Pawars – claimed descent from a mythical figure who arose out of a sacrificial fire pit near Mt Abu in Rajasthan. The story – probably invented long after the rise of the Rajputs – maintained that the rishi Vasishtha had a kamadhenu, a cow that grants all one’s wishes, which was stolen by another sage, Vishvamitra. Vasishtha therefore made an offering to the sacrificial fire at Mt Abu whereupon a hero sprang out of the fire, then brought the cow back to Vasishtha. In gratitude Vasishtha bestowed the name Paramara (explained as ‘slayer of the enemy’) on the hero, from whom the Paramara dynasty was descended. The other clans had variations on this story. Consequently these four were said to be of the agnikula, or descended from the fire.
Traditionally, the fire-rite had a purificatory symbolism and the insistence on the agnikula story is significant in view of the ambiguous origin of those involved. The rivalry of Vasishtha and Vishvamitra was a theme in many myths. In some versions, Vishvamitra was said to be a kshatriya attempting to become a rishi through asceticism, a practice more frequently associated with brahmans. Again, there was a hint of some connection between brahmans and kshatriyas, while to add interest to the myth Mt Abu later became important as a place sacred to the Jainas.
The four clans claiming agnikula origin dominated early Rajput activities. The kingdoms that they founded arose from the ruins of the older Pratihara kingdom. The new Pratiharas ruled in southern Rajasthan. The Chahamanas or Chauhans had their centre at Shakambari, south-east of Delhi, initially subject to the main Pratihara dynasty, but with branch lines arising later at Nadol, Ranthambhor, Jalor and Sanchor, all in Rajasthan. Chaulukya or Solanki power was concentrated in Gujarat and Kathiawar. The Paramaras established their control in Malwa with their capital at Dhar near Indore. They began by acknowledging the Rashtrakutas as suzerains, but broke away from them at the end of the tenth century and established their power during the reign of Bhoja Paramara in the next century.
Others, claiming to be Rajputs and descended from the solar and lunar lines, established themselves as local kings in various parts of western and central India. Among them were the Chandellas, prominent in the tenth century in Bundelkhand, with their centre at Khajuraho and their territory known as Jejakabhukti; the Guhilas of Mewar who participated in the early campaigns against the Arabs and who changed from an initial brahman identity to Suryavamsha kshatriyas; the Tomaras, also subject earlier to the Pratiharas, ruling in the Haryana region near Dhillika – modern Delhi – a city which they founded in 736, and who were overthrown by the Chauhans in the twelfth century. Another family, the Kalachuris of Tripuri near Jabalpur, also began as subject to the Pratiharas but acquired independence and prestige under their King, Kama, in the eleventh century.
The focus of each kingdom was the territory ruled directly by the dynasty. Branches of each dynasty, or clans claiming to be branches, proliferated in neighbouring areas. An explanation for this may lie in the distribution of land among kinsmen ruled over by branch lineages or clans, sometimes on behalf of the main dynasty. It provided a wider power base for dynastic control, but implicit in the system was also the threat of such lineages being replaced by others making the same claims. One way to consolidate clan relations was through marriage alliances, and this practice was common. From the ninth century onwards the territory was sometimes described as a notional unit of eighty-four villages, which may have been connected with tribute and tax, combined with the procedure of distribution. Fortified settlements in each unit functioned as both administrative centres and markets for local produce. The granting of land, or the acquiring of territory through a raid and its subsequent distribution, was seminal to the attaining of the required status.
The system of the branching of lineages had its own problems. Although they took the name of the main lineage, there was no certainty that they were in every case actual kinsmen. Segmentary lineage systems, as most of these were, can with some facility incorporate non-kinship-related families as a segment of the main line. The lineages do not necessarily have to be related by descent. But the main lineage and the subsidiary ones have to maintain a mutually agreed kinship. This is also suggested by the pattern that emerges on a mapping of the earlier segmentary lineages of the original Chandravamsha or lunar line, given in the Mahabharata and the Vishnu Purana. These descent lines fanned out to accommodate the many branch lines. They all claimed the same ancestry and kinship links, but the links were doubtful given the depth of the genealogy, the nature of the names and the stories told about them. Branch lines among Rajputs sometimes had variant origin myths and ancestral s
tatus, differing in location and time. The family of a high-ranking officer who had received a grant for service -preferably a grant in perpetuity – could also claim a lineage link with the ruling family, using this as an acceptable way of asserting power.
Not only was there a stronger insistence on being of the kshatriya caste, but an additional category of kshatriya status was thought necessary, that of the rajaputra or Rajput, claiming a filial kinship with kings. Some difference must obviously have been perceived between the two. The status was used widely, especially in areas and among people who did not have a long history of monarchy or of an agrarian economy, where claims to such status could have been awe-inspiring. Consequently, it was adopted in many parts of Rajasthan and central India. Initially, it appears that control over resources was not centralized in Rajput kingdoms. The heroic act in the agnikula story was not battling with demons to capture resources, but bringing back the wish-fulfilling cow for the sage. The procedures were known – grants of land, brahman settlements, agrarian revenue and trading networks, the court conforming to Sanskritic culture ways – and these had to be instituted. The pattern became especially apparent in areas which had been relatively isolated that now opened up to evolve into kingdoms.
The Creation of New Settlements
Creating new settlements or extending control over existing ones was crucial to retaining economic and political power. This included annexing territory, either of other kingdoms or of the atavika rajas, forest-chiefs. As always, wars and campaigns were necessary both to annex territory and to enhance income through collecting booty. Forest-chiefs were subjugated and their societies encouraged to imitate the society of the victors, supposedly through a process of osmosis but equally likely through some coercion. This involved induction into the caste system, the families of the chiefs being accorded kshatriya status or, if important enough, accorded a lineage connection through a marriage alliance. However, the rest of the clan generally fell into varying shudra statuses. Occupational changes could also have been involved if the erstwhile chiefs were drawn into administrative ranks, with the rest becoming peasants cultivating newly cleared areas, although a few became craftsmen. The identity of Rajput clans was also linked to their kuladevis, clan goddesses, whose origins often went back to the worship of aniconic deities. The interweaving of the many societies of a region can be observed in religious belief and practice as they evolved in relation to the forms adopted by various dynasties and centres, or as they were inducted into the Puranic religion.
The transition from jana to jati or from clan to caste, as this process has sometimes been termed, is evident from early times as a recognizable process in the creation of Indian society and culture. Given the availability of a variety of sources and the detailed information they contain, such processes become more apparent during this period. An earlier distinction differentiated the grama or kshetra, the settled area, from the aranya or vana, the unknown forest peopled by rakshasas or demons. When the forest became an area to be exploited, either through garnering its natural products such as timber and elephants, or by clearing and cultivation, the fear of the demon gradually diminished. This presumably brought state administration into closer contact with forest-peoples, who were or had been largely hunter-gatherers, shifting cultivators, pastoralists or horticulturalists. These were the groups that were subordinated or converted when settlers arrived searching for resources. The earlier tradition evident from inscriptions of the fifth and sixth century, where forest-chiefs – often appropriately called vyaghraraja or ‘tiger chief’ – became the founders of dynasties, continued. Some dynasties had also claimed that their founder was a brahman and that their power was established through conquering forest kingdoms. Now they had to build tanks and dam mountain streams for irrigation, maintain temples and use the services of brahmans before they could claim to be kshatriyas. The literature of the rime occasionally showed vignettes of this change.
Setting up a royal line followed a familiar procedure. A samanta would rebel against his suzerain and successfully assert his independence. A samanta status emerged from one of various situations: conquest by a ruler who reinstalled the defeated king or chief in a tributary status; or a grant of land carrying governmental authority, which became a base for the recipient or his descendant to control a larger territory, proclaiming his new status by marrying into a family of established status; or the assertion of independence by a branch line which already had some administrative authority. Administrative office was a recognized channel to power. Tributary kings could not be shuffled, but appointment to administrative office indicated rank and this was a way of keeping the appointees within the hierarchy of the system. The feasibility of these procedures required a delicate control and adjustment over the functions of power. One aspect of this adjustment was the intricate connotation of manners and the coding of signs required by the royal court.
Large numbers of grants of land involved loss of revenue for the state. Some degree of administrative decentralization followed. Presumably compensation lay in the network of support from loyal grantees scattered across the countryside, at least until such time as the grantee broke away. In some areas grants of land meant an expansion of the agrarian base, either through intensifying agriculture in areas already under cultivation or else opening new areas to cultivation. Irrigation systems were built at the initiative of landowners and, where these were large and complex, the state could assist. It is ironic that state attention to the hydraulic machinery came together with a political control which was anything but despotic! An increase in production stimulated exchange centres and markets, which fostered trade. The grantees who settled in forested areas were often pioneers, and elsewhere they could act as the king’s eye and ear. The larger temples built with a royal grant became another avenue for propagating royal authority.
The frequency of hero-stones may suggest a diffused administration where the initiative to defend a village or its cattle was left to the village. This would have varied from place to place. In Saurashtra/Kathiawar, for instance, there appears to have been a high dependence on the local hero. Where battles were fought there would of course be clusters of hero-stones commemorating dead warriors. Cattle-raids point to the continuance of pastoralism, possibly as an adjunct in areas otherwise said to be agricultural. Hero-stones and sati memorials became more common in parts of Rajasthan and Gujarat from the twelfth century, although many were also linked to battles. The stones were sculpted to depict the hero in a formal fashion or to depict the action in which he was killed. Stylistically, they were different from the hero-stones in the peninsula and were not always divided into panels. Some were in the shape of squat four-sided pillars, whereas others were upstanding slabs known as paliyas in Gujarat. The occasional camel may suggest an attack on a camel caravan of a trader. In Rajasthan, inscriptions on the stones sometimes mentioned names and some provided a date for the event. It has been suggested that such memorials may have evolved in various parts of the subcontinent from similar memorials used by people of the forest, and the same explanation is given for the menhirs, the upright stones, used by megalithic societies.
Associated with the hero-stone was the sati memorial. This was generally a slab containing the usual sati symbol of the right arm with bangles intact to indicate a continuing married state, a lime held in the palm to ward off evil and some small insignia. The sun and the moon signifying eternity were also depicted, as for the hero-stone. Intended originally as a ritual death for the kshatriya wife of the kshatriya hero dying in battle, the ritual of becoming a sati was later adopted by other castes as well, and received extensive sanction, ultimately leading to the deification of the sati. Such a deified sati has been worshipped since this period at a temple in Wadhwan in Saurashtra, set in a courtyard lined with sati memorials and hero-stones.
Hero-stones and sati stones were primarily memorials but they could also be symbols in aspirations for status and income, which was often the case in the peninsula. It
was not unknown for families of the hero or sati to claim a higher varna status or some benefits from the ruler. The hero died in battle, or in defending the village or the herd, or in self-defence against brigands, but the sati’s death was a deliberate act. This of course was also a commentary on what was expected of upper-caste women in these societies. It is debatable whether such acts were always voluntary or whether they might have been encouraged because of the possibility of material gain for the surviving family. Most hero-stones have been left wherever they were set up. Some were reinstalled in the precincts of a temple, thus enhancing the status of those being memorialized, and some became the focus of worship. Temples and worship meant endowments, donations and offerings, apart from deification.
Central Asian Intervention
Northern India experienced a brief respite from aggression from across the north-western border. The impact of the Hunas had faded when they became a respectable caste in Indian society. The thrusts of the Arabs had been held back. For some time, the campaigns and battles of northern India were internal. Endless campaigns devoured the funds and energy of each dynasty, and victories were claims to status. Breaking away from a suzerain power also necessitated a demonstration of military power to maintain independence. Contact with the world outside became more limited as the obsession with local affairs increased. Politics increasingly emerged from local happenings and were chiselled by local concerns. This pattern was disturbed in the eleventh century. Of the campaigns within the subcontinent the most serious was that of Rajendra Chola along the east coast, his armies coming as far north as the Ganges. From outside the subcontinent, Mahmud of Ghazni began his raids into north-western India. Each was oblivious of the other, which is curious, given that there was far more communication of news now than there had been before, and the raids of Mahmud lasted for over two decades. Inscriptional references to places in south India, linked to trade, point to communication.
The Penguin History of Early India Page 61
