The JATTS: Brief history
Jassa
[modified re-post]
Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
: The Jats (and other many other traditionally agrarian groups such as Ahirs,
: Gujars, Awans, Ghakkars, etc.) of the north have been traced to the
: Massa-Gatae branch of the Scythians ("Jat" is from "Gatae"; "Massa" means
: "Grand" or "big" in old Persian - the language of the Scythians) who invaded
: and settled the northern subcontinent in periodic waves between 300 B.C.-400
: A.D. From ancient Greek sources such as Herrodontus and Pliny it is known
: that the Scythians as far back as 400 B.C. ruled over much of Central Asia
: including the northern subcontinent up to the river Ganges. These groups,
: who
: formed the ruling class of this region till the 7-10th century A.D.,
: patronized Buddhism and are referred to disparigingly in Brahmin writings as
: "melechha kings". Therefore, much of the history of the northern
: subcontinent's history during the Buddhist period from 400 B.C. - 700 A.D. is
: tied to these Indo-Scythians.
: Many nembers of these Scythic or Hun ethnic nationalities groups are
: classified as "Hindus", however, they have maintained to a large extent and
: introduced into the broader culture their traditional kinship system and
: cultural traditions and ethos which they brought with them. A good example of
: these cultural artifacts is the dance (e.g. Bhangra), ceremony, and social
: customs of Jats, Rajputs, and others. Also through marraige within their
: own groups or closely allied groups, these ethnic castes have maintained
: their blood-line. Is this cultural and ethic heritage, which was at one
: time historically foreign to the subcontinent to be also defined as
: "Hindu" by the champions of the newly empowered caste orthodoxy?
Sanjay Saxena
Jassa wrote:
>
> [modified re-post]
>
> Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
>
> : The Jats (and other many other traditionally agrarian groups such as Ahirs,
> : Gujars, Awans, Ghakkars, etc.) of the north have been traced to the
> : Massa-Gatae branch of the Scythians ("Jat" is from "Gatae"; "Massa" means
> : "Grand" or "big" in old Persian - the language of the Scythians) who invaded
> : and settled the northern subcontinent in periodic waves between 300 B.C.-400
> : A.D. From ancient Greek sources such as Herrodontus and Pliny it is known
Pliny the Elder and Pliny the Younger were both Roman not Greek.
The Greek historian Herodotus would have been horrified by the suggestion that he was
some kind of horrible-fanged (Herro-dontus? ;-)) ogre.
> : that the Scythians as far back as 400 B.C. ruled over much of Central Asia
> : including the northern subcontinent up to the river Ganges. These groups,
> : who
> : formed the ruling class of this region till the 7-10th century A.D.,
Wrong again! The Sai Wang (later Shakas) tribe of Scythians were defeated and
displaced in the Steppes of Central Asia by another nomadic tribe, the Yue-chi (later
Kushanas). The defeated Shakas then crossed the mountains and entered the Indus
plains and Bactria. There they warred with the Parthians in many internecine and
inconclusive skirmishes. In the Indian context, the Shakas had a brief glorious reign
under Maues and Azes I before being eclipsed by the Indo-Parthians and subsequently
annihilated by the Kushanas in the Indian Northwest. Thereafter, their sporadically
resurgent power was restricted to western India before being completely extinguished by
Chandra Gupta II. The scythians in Indian sub-continent were a far cry from being the
dominant power as you seem to suggest.
> : patronized Buddhism and are referred to disparigingly in Brahmin writings as
Though, some Shaka rulers did patronize Buddhism, the most powerful among them, such as,
Rudradaman and Bhartridaman embraced Hinduism and married Hindu princesses as part of a
measured policy pursued by them in order to be merged into the Hindu society.
> : "melechha kings". Therefore, much of the history of the northern
> : subcontinent's history during the Buddhist period from 400 B.C. - 700 A.D. is
> : tied to these Indo-Scythians.
>
> : Many nembers of these Scythic or Hun ethnic nationalities groups are
> : classified as "Hindus", however, they have maintained to a large extent and
> : introduced into the broader culture their traditional kinship system and
> : cultural traditions and ethos which they brought with them. A good example of
> : these cultural artifacts is the dance (e.g. Bhangra), ceremony, and social
> : customs of Jats, Rajputs, and others. Also through marraige within their
> : own groups or closely allied groups, these ethnic castes have maintained
> : their blood-line. Is this cultural and ethic heritage, which was at one
> : time historically foreign to the subcontinent to be also defined as
> : "Hindu" by the champions of the newly empowered caste orthodoxy?
It is also true that these tribes had populated western India for several decades
without having made any significant impact politically or culturally until Harsha
Vardhana transferred the center of power in northern India from Magadha to Kanauj in the
midst of Ganga-Yamuna Doab, that these tribes living to west of the new power center
became more important. The foremost among them, the Gurjara-Pratihara, later established
a mighty empire in the northwest, ruling from Kanauj. The antecedents of these tribes
are far from clear, however, the Rajputs always insisted on ritual purity and valiantly
fought against the Arabs and, later, against the Sultans of Delhi in order to stake a
claim for their descent from Vedic Aryans. According to Rajput tradition, in the year
747 AD a great fire ceremony was performed at Mount Abu by which all Rajput clans were
purified and admitted to the status of Kshatriyas. The Paramaras, for instance, have
asserted in their inscriptions that they belong to the Agnikula ('fire family'),
purified by Rishi Vasistha at a great fire ceremony. By tracing their origin to the fire
god they wished to be on par with the great royal lineages of the Sun and the Moon
(Suryavamsha and Chandravamsha) that go back to Rama and Krishna respectively.
The historical veracity of these accounts notwithstanding, don't you get a general
sense that there was a great effort on their part to attain a modicum of legitimacy in
the Hindu Universe. It is clear to me where their allegience lay in the historical times
and, perhaps, still does.
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <319FAC...@mail.idt.net>,
Sanjay Saxena <saxe...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Jassa wrote:
>>
>> [modified re-post]
>>
>> Gurupdesh Singh (gs...@cornell.edu) wrote:
>>
>> : The Jats (and other many other traditionally agrarian groups such as
Ahirs,
>> : Gujars, Awans, Ghakkars, etc.) of the north have been traced to the
>> : Massa-Gatae branch of the Scythians ("Jat" is from "Gatae"; "Massa" means
>> : "Grand" or "big" in old Persian - the language of the Scythians) who
invaded
>> : and settled the northern subcontinent in periodic waves between 300
B.C.-400
>> : A.D. From ancient Greek sources such as Herrodontus and Pliny it is
known
Asia
>> : including the northern subcontinent up to the river Ganges. These
groups,
>> : who
>> : formed the ruling class of this region till the 7-10th century A.D.,
>
Firstly, the Pliny I am talking about is the one who travelled with
Alexander and is a Greek not a Roman.
>Wrong again! The Sai Wang (later Shakas) tribe of Scythians were defeated and
****************************************************************************
>displaced in the Steppes of Central Asia by another nomadic tribe, the
*****************************************************************
The Scythians are classified into 5-6 main branches such as the Massa-gatea,
Sacae, Alani, etc. but all groups shared a common language and customs. From
Greek and Persian sources (such as Herodotus, Plotemy and historians of
Darius) place the Massa-Gatea as the most southern group in the central asian
steppe. Therefore, the Scythians who entered the north were from this group.
However, which group exactly entered the north is immaterial, the main point
is that these Scthians and their sucessors in the north, the Indo-Scythians
played an important political role during the Buddhist and pre-muslim periods
(400 B.C. - 1000 A.D.).
Yue-chi (later
>Kushanas). The defeated Shakas then crossed the mountains and entered the
Indus
>plains and Bactria. There they warred with the Parthians in many internecine
and
>inconclusive skirmishes. In the Indian context, the Shakas had a brief
glorious reign
>under Maues and Azes I before being eclipsed by the Indo-Parthians and
subsequently
>annihilated by the Kushanas in the Indian Northwest. Thereafter, their
****************************************
The Kushanas according to Todd and Cunningham are themselves a Scythian group.
In fact, the later Scythic waves (200-400 A.D.) were from the Kushana Branch.
General Cunningham has analyzed coins from ancient Punjab/Afghanistan
Kingdoms such as the one in 3rd century A.D. of Jauvalla. Many of these
dynastic names are very similar to Jat clan names surviving even today in
Punjab such as Jauval, Maur (the Mauryas), Malli (who Alexander fought). See
refernce of Dillon, B.S. for more on this.
sporadically
>resurgent power was restricted to western India before being completely
extinguished by
******************
>Chandra Gupta II. The scythians in Indian sub-continent were a far cry from
************************************************************************
I have broken the role of the Scythians and their descendents the
Indo-Scythians, from whom Jats and many other northern ehtnic groups
have descended, into 2 periods: the Buddhist annd post-Buddhist periods.
Buddhist Period (400 B.C. - 700 A.D.)
-------------------------------------
For obvious reasons, the Indo-Scythian role in the political history of the
northern subcontinent does not sit well with historians from the caste
orthodoxy (Brahmins, Banias, Kayasth, etc.), therefore they attempt to gloss
over and minimize the role of these non-Brahmanical groups in the pre-Muslim
period. In fact, if it was not for Chinese travellers who chronicled their
travels during Askokas Maurya's reign, we would not know about the biggest
empire built on the subcontinent. Brahmin references describe Ashoka as a
"minor king" or a "mlechha king". All other Indo-Scythic rulers who reigned
during the Buddhist period have also been erased from history once Brahmanism
appeared during the 7-8th century A.D. after the destruction of Buddhism.
However, as General Cunningham and Major Todd (the 19th century pioneers on
the history of the Indo-Scythians and their relation to Jats, Ahirs, Gujars,
Ghakkars, and even some Rajput groups) have shown that these groups played a
dominant role in the political history of the north during the Buddhist period
from 400 B.C. - 700 A.D. before the Hun invasion (by the way, Todd considers
the White Huns to be themselves of "Scythic stock" and related to the
Scythians who left the steppe earlier). Both Cunningham and Todd conclude
from their study of coins obtained from the Gupta period that the the Guptas
themselves were a Indo-Scythian dynasty. The coins from the era show the
rulers wearing dress which is classically Scythian (long tunic, loose
trousers, long hair etc.) and completedly non-indegenious and similar to
Scythian costumes discovered in Scythian graves by Soviet archeologist in
central asia and Siberia during the 60-80s (see Dehiya (1980), Dhillon (1994)
below).
Post- Buddhist, Pre-Muslim Period (700 - 1026 A.D.)
--------------------------------------------------
Direct evidence of the political situation in the greater Punjab region (say
the Indus to the Jumna) at the dawm of the muslim era comes during Mahmud
Ghaznavi's campaigns in Punjab/Sindh during 1020-1030 A.D. His historian
Feristha who travelled with him states that as Mahmud was
returning from his first escapade in Somnath, he was attacked by Jats
fron Sindh and Punjab who inflicted considerable damage on him. This
event, convinced Mahmud that in order to expand his control into North
India, he had to first suppress Jat power in the Punjab. Therefore, in 1026,
he conducted his second campaign into Punjab and again Feristha mentions
that "this was a war against the Jats". He also records, that after
taking Multan, Mahmud "built a thousand war boats" studded with long iron
spikes to cross the Chenab as the Jats also excelled in naval warfare.
This war finally culminated with the death of the Jat King AnangPal
(whose capital was in Batinda) who was leading the combined Jats forces at
Attock in the North West Frontier. Ironically, near the end of the 18th
century this is exactly where the Khalsa army of Ranjit Singh - composed
primarily of Jat Sikhs - defeated the last Pathan invasion of the
subcontinent. Some, decades later the Khalsa army would march into Kabul
itself during the 1830s.
In western U.P., in parallel with developments in Punjab, the Jats of this
region has also taken back their political soverignty during the 18th century.
The most powerful of these Jat states was the one established by Suraj Mal and
his son Jawahir Singh. According to British historians, he kept an army of
over 70,000 men before his state was annexed to British India during the
1830s. Ranjit Singh and Suraj Mal had very friendly relations and many Sikh
mercenaries also served in his army.
Therefore, direct historical records and chronicles from the time show that
the Punjab region was the dominions of Jat rulers (Indo-Scythians) for
almost 14 centuries prior to the arrival of the Afghan period.
During the 18th century, the Jats of the north had, on the eve of the rise of
the British empire in the north, risen to re-take political control to form
de-facto Jat rule in the region from Kabul to beyond the Yamunna and from
Kashmir to Sindh. The political role of their predecessors, the
Indo-Scythians has been well researched by 19th century authorities such as
Todd, Cunningham, Elliot, Elphistine, etc.
I dont have time to hunt down complete references, but for more recent
references try
"The History and Study of the Jats" by Dr. B.S. Dhillon (1994)
"Jats, The Ancient Rulers" by Dr. Dahiya (1980)
In the 1st chapter of his book Dr. Dhillon gives 40 reference stretching from
ancient Greek chroniclers/historians (eg. Herodotus, Plotemy, Pliny) to
British historians (eg. Cunningham, Ibbetson, Todd, Elliot and many more) to
establish the Scythian origin of Jats and many Rajputs groups. With a total
of over 400 references, Dhillon(1994) is an extremely rich source.
And the original contributions of Todd, Cunningham, and Elliot("The 36 Royal
Races of Hindustan") are a must.
Kunal Singh
In article <4nrctp$m...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) writes:
.. stuff deleted ..
the White Huns to be themselves of "Scythic stock" and related to the
Scythians who left the steppe earlier). Both Cunningham and Todd conclude
from their study of coins obtained from the Gupta period that the the Guptas
themselves were a Indo-Scythian dynasty. The coins from the era show the
rulers wearing dress which is classically Scythian (long tunic, loose
trousers, long hair etc.) and completedly non-indegenious and similar to
Scythian costumes discovered in Scythian graves by Soviet archeologist in
central asia and Siberia during the 60-80s (see Dehiya (1980), Dhillon (1994)
below).
I think we have to be careful with the interpretation here. Wearing
clothes which were similar to Scythians does not at all mean that the
Guptas had Scythian blood, though quite possible for someone like
Harshavardhana it isn't sufficient evidence. You should carefully
look at who is represented on the coins, and whether the capital of
the Guptas has by then moved to Kannauj which would be close to the
Scythians, and thus the influence of dress would be quite natural.
Undoubtedly many of the Guptas would form alliances with the Scythian
kings and many such Scythian kings would call themselves Guptas by
association.
The start of the Guptas within the far-eastern area of Pataliputra and
the added condition of their being of lowly origin would not give
credence to the ORIGIN of the Guptas being of a mixed race. But it is
certainly possible that Harshavardhana may have had scythian blood
depending on whom the Guptas married once they had moved the capital
to Kannauj. The reason for their movement westwards was most likely
not due to any great love for the "melecha" culture of the Kushanas or
its cultural significance in Bharat Varsha. In ancient times capitals
were moved as necessitated by the need to manage war campaigns. This
is not just seen during the Gupta dynasty, but was the very reason for
the establishment of Pataliputra -- Ajatsatru wanted to wage war
against Vaishali on the other side of the Ganga and so decided to move
the capital from Rajgir. So the capital of Magadha moved from Rajgir
to Pataliputra, to Ayodhya, and then finally to Kannauj where
Harshavardhan was assasinated. But even then Rajgir is where we see
Harshavardhana "camping out" with his army when he hears of the
scholar Hiuen Tsang. The move towards the west was most likely
necessary to wage war effectively against the "melecha" kings. But
even then western UP was not considered a region of "melecha" kings so
it is even possible that several scythian tribes had already found
acceptance within Bharat Varsha. But the Huns hadn't, and they were
seen as invading "melechas." Remember that Harshavardhana assumed the
throne at the age of 18 to save his sister who was married to a Hindu
king in the north-west who was killed by an invading "melecha," most
likely a Hun.
Jassa
Sanjay Saxena (saxe...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
.... deleted .....
Sanjay, i'd love to chat, but it seems Gurupdesh has shredded your theory
to pieces.
Adios.
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <NNYXSI.96May22101021@swap31-220>,
nnyxsi@swap31-220 (Kunal Singh) wrote:
>
>In article <4nrctp$m...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh
Singh) writes:
>
>
> the White Huns to be themselves of "Scythic stock" and related to the
> Scythians who left the steppe earlier). Both Cunningham and Todd conclude
> from their study of coins obtained from the Gupta period that the the
Guptas
> themselves were a Indo-Scythian dynasty. The coins from the era show the
> rulers wearing dress which is classically Scythian (long tunic, loose
> trousers, long hair etc.) and completedly non-indegenious and similar to
> Scythian costumes discovered in Scythian graves by Soviet archeologist in
> central asia and Siberia during the 60-80s (see Dehiya (1980), Dhillon
(1994)
> below).
>
>I think we have to be careful with the interpretation here. Wearing
>clothes which were similar to Scythians does not at all mean that the
>Guptas had Scythian blood, though quite possible for someone like
>Harshavardhana it isn't sufficient evidence. You should carefully
>look at who is represented on the coins, and whether the capital of
>the Guptas has by then moved to Kannauj which would be close to the
>Scythians, and thus the influence of dress would be quite natural.
>Undoubtedly many of the Guptas would form alliances with the Scythian
*******************************************************************
A conjecture!
>kings and many such Scythian kings would call themselves Guptas by
*****************************************************
You need to first read the evidence supporting the claims of scholars
like General Cunningham, Major Todd, and Elliot who first examined
these coins in addition to other evidence before throwing out your
wild unsupported conjectures that you dream up at the key board.
Now take an example of the Moguls and coins from that era (15-17 the
century). The dress of Mogul emporors on their coins had a distinctive
central asia style to it. Suppose we did not know about Baber and the
fact that Moguls were muslims, what conclusions would you draw from this
about Mogul origins?
Also the Indo-Scythians (or Sakas as Indian historians refer to them)
according to Plotemy (known as the "father of geography") had as far back as
400 B.C. gained control over central asia up to the river Ganges.
Also, keep in mind that the Gupta empire, never included the greater Punjab
region, and was confined to the north east. Therefore, it was essentially a
regional kingdom. Much of the central, southern, western and northern
subcontinent were not part of it.
>association.
>
>The start of the Guptas within the far-eastern area of Pataliputra and
**********************************************
Their is a controvery about this. Cunningham and many others historians
from the 19th as well as the current hold the view that the Guptas were
a north western group that expanded east.
>the added condition of their being of lowly origin would not give
>credence to the ORIGIN of the Guptas being of a mixed race. But it is
>certainly possible that Harshavardhana may have had scythian blood
********************************************************
>depending on whom the Guptas married once they had moved the capital
****************************************************
I dont understand your point. Harsha had scythian blood because he married
into the guptas?
>to Kannauj. The reason for their movement westwards was most likely
>not due to any great love for the "melecha" culture of the Kushanas or
>its cultural significance in Bharat Varsha.
By the way Harsha is just one of the kings in the north during the 5th century
A.D. who was not erased out of history during the 7th century
when Brahmanism replaced Buddhism as the dominant religion because
he fed and took care of some Brahmins; but he remained a Buddhist. All the
Indo-Scythian dynasties in the north were Buddhist from 400 B.C to 7th century
A.D. and the historical record of these has been destroyed along with
Buddhism.
Much of this history has been re-constructed from coin evidence and historical
documents from travelers to the region. Even Ashoka the Great was relegated
to the status of a "mlechha and minor king" in Brahmin texts when the history
of the previous centuries was erased, re-edited, and distorted to fit into the
Brahmins' political and caste agenda during the 7th century A.D.
Therefore, there is a question about the historical authenticity about
claims about the Guptas in Brahmanical writings. Moving of his capital
from east to west is one such possible distortion. Chinese tarvelers to India
during the 6th century report that the subcontinent was still primarily a
Buddhist state and society, so it is difficult to accept the claims made
in Brahmanical writings (from after the 7th century A.D.) that the Guptas
followed Brahmanism.
Brijnandan Dehiya
In article <NNYXSI.96May22101021@swap31-220>,
Kunal Singh <nnyxsi@swap31-220> wrote:
>
>necessary to wage war effectively against the "melecha" kings. But
>even then western UP was not considered a region of "melecha" kings so
>it is even possible that several scythian tribes had already found
>acceptance within Bharat Varsha. But the Huns hadn't, and they were
>seen as invading "melechas." Remember that Harshavardhana assumed the
>throne at the age of 18 to save his sister who was married to a Hindu
>king in the north-west who was killed by an invading "melecha," most
>likely a Hun.
>
You appear to be quite interested in history and that it good. But you need to
read more of it and read it without pre-formed biases in favour of the "Indian"
perspective.
Also, (it's been a long time since I read Harsha's story and might be
mistaking him here), Harsha's elder brother was Rajvardhana. Raj was elected
king first but he was an inept ruler and hated Harsha's popularity among the
masses. Raj's wife was fond of Harsha too. So Raj tried to murder Harsha one
night but Harsha killed Raj instead. It was then, that Harsha became king and
married Raj's wife. One does not "assume" the throne.
Incidentally, Harsha was also called "Jatanam Anujeshwar" - The younger lord
of the Jats. And Arya Manju-sri-Mula-Kalpa tells us that the Gupta kings were
Jatas, originally from _Mathura_, neat Delhi, before becoming the kings of
Magadha.
And please mention your sources. Most of what you have written is plain wrong.
The Gupta kings did NOT originate from Pataliputra (Patna). Read the
references given by Gurupdesh, and you will be amazed at the strength of
evidence for what he wrote earlier.
Take care and read those references! :)
Brij
----
Kunal Singh
Never heard of these silly historians. I don't believe that people
from the army should be studying history. I don't dream up anything
at the keyboard, I will give you a full detailed account of history as
seen from the eyes of Patliputra.
Now take an example of the Moguls and coins from that era (15-17 the
century). The dress of Mogul emporors on their coins had a distinctive
central asia style to it. Suppose we did not know about Baber and the
fact that Moguls were muslims, what conclusions would you draw from this
about Mogul origins?
Also the Indo-Scythians (or Sakas as Indian historians refer to them)
according to Plotemy (known as the "father of geography") had as far back
as 400 B.C. gained control over central asia up to the river Ganges.
I don't know what you mean by "up to the river Ganges," I am assuming
that you mean at the beginning of the Ganga in western UP. The Sakas
had indeed become powerful in north-western India BEFORE the rise of
the Gupta dynasty. During that time Pataliputra had come under the
control of the Licchavis who were hillsmen from the northern
Bihar/Nepal area. Before this time the Sakas had RAIDED Pataliputra.
They had neither stayed in the area, perhaps the reason why there
aren't any Jats in Bihar, nor established any political control for
even a short duration. They mostly attacked the city, killed some
inhabitants, wreaked some havoc, and then ran back. After the
Licchavis from the north extended their control to Pataliputra across
the Ganga, the queen of the Licchavis married a certain Chandragupta.
Though it was known that Chandragupta was of low caste, I would guess
that Chandragupta would be a local prince or nobleman from the south
of the Ganga whose rulers were quite often from the Shudra/Kurmi
castes, it is highly improbable that he would be a Scythian or even
related to one.
As for Pataliputra's attitude towards the Sakas (Scythians), they were
considered foreigners at the time of Vikramaditya who was the son of
Chandragupta and I guess the Licchavi queen. Chandragupta himself
would again extend the territory of Magadha westwards. But it is the
latter figure Vikramaditya who would become the stuff of legends. He
was the one who saved the succeeding queen of Pataliputra from falling
into the hands of a Saka king who had demanded her hand as a condition
to letting Vikramaditya and his brother leave from the western regions
of UP -- the Sakas had them surrounded. The initial success of the
Sakas would finally meet defeat as Vikramaditya would launch a
relentless campaign to free the northern regions of Bharat Varsha from
the control of foreigners. And such tenacity has repeatedly been
demonstrated only by Biharis in the north. So much for the rule of
the Sakas and their demands for the queen of Pataliputra. ;-)
Also, keep in mind that the Gupta empire, never included the greater Punjab
region, and was confined to the north east. Therefore, it was essentially a
regional kingdom. Much of the central, southern, western and northern
subcontinent were not part of it.
Most likely, as I've repeatedly said Punjab was the entry point for
all invaders. Here's an explanation of the Scythian/Rajput Guptas
etc. Before the capital of Magadha moved from Ayodhya to Kannauj, it
had also for a short time been Ujjain. During this time, the Guptas
formed alliances with the rulers of Mewar and Rajputana. Thus they
would also call themselves the Guptas by association. That doesn't
mean a damn thing! The Scythians in turn would be overthrown by the
Huns. The Huns would also initially become powerful before suffering
setbacks at the hands of rulers of MP, I think Baladitya and
Yasodharman (must be Bihari influence I think). Finally the last
blows would be delivered by a federation of the Hindu kings of the
northern regions. And this time it would be Harshavardhan who is
considered by every historian that I have thus far read a "scion" of
the Gupta dynasty who would rise to take absolute control of the
"Uttarpath."
>association.
>
>The start of the Guptas within the far-eastern area of Pataliputra and
**********************************************
Their is a controvery about this. Cunningham and many others historians
from the 19th as well as the current hold the view that the Guptas were
a north western group that expanded east.
Ha, ha, ha! What a joke. Cunningham should first read the geneology
of the first Gupta called Chandragupta and how his son viewed the
Sakas. There is no controversy about it, as at least six of the
historical textbooks that I have read agree on this subject. I don't
think I want to read yours. You have to understand that people
claiming to be rulers of Magadha is not a new thing. Even some
ancient kings had claimed to have been the "rulers" of Magadha in the
Puranas, some ruler in the MP region claiming to have ruled Magadha
during the time when Bimbisara was actually the ruler of Magadha. The
only reason why their claims were disputed was that unfortunately no
evidence of such rule could be found in Bihar, Bimbisara was described
as having been the ruler in the Pali records.
As for Cunningham's claim that the Kushans and Huns were all a
Scythian dynasty, was he a Scythian himself I wonder, the founders of
the Kushan empire were from the region of the Great Wall of China! So
I would at least expect quite a good deal of Mongolian blood, perhaps
the people of Ladakh ? Where do these Kashmiri Pandits get off
claiming to belong to the Kushan dynasty I will never understand.
THEY ARE ALL IMPOSTERS! BY NOW WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE
IMPERSONATING TENDENCY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE NORTH-WEST -- i.e. RAJPUTS
etc.! :-)
>the added condition of their being of lowly origin would not give
>credence to the ORIGIN of the Guptas being of a mixed race. But it is
>certainly possible that Harshavardhana may have had scythian blood
********************************************************
>depending on whom the Guptas married once they had moved the capital
****************************************************
I dont understand your point. Harsha had scythian blood because he married
into the guptas?
The only possibility that I could see of the Guptas having any
Scythian blood is if the Guptas of Kannauj had married some Scythian
prince or princess and Harshavardhan was thus of mixed blood.
>to Kannauj. The reason for their movement westwards was most likely
>not due to any great love for the "melecha" culture of the Kushanas or
>its cultural significance in Bharat Varsha.
By the way Harsha is just one of the kings in the north during the 5th century
A.D. who was not erased out of history during the 7th century
when Brahmanism replaced Buddhism as the dominant religion because
he fed and took care of some Brahmins; but he remained a Buddhist. All the
Indo-Scythian dynasties in the north were Buddhist from 400 B.C to 7th century
A.D. and the historical record of these has been destroyed along with
Buddhism.
Uh, if all the historical records have been destroyed then how do you
know that they were all Buddhist ? Before Harshavardhana came
Samudragupta. Samudragupta is described as having Brahmin tendencies
and may have supported Brahmins more than the Buddhists.
Much of this history has been re-constructed from coin evidence and historical
documents from travelers to the region. Even Ashoka the Great was relegated
to the status of a "mlechha and minor king" in Brahmin texts when the history
of the previous centuries was erased, re-edited, and distorted to fit into the
Brahmins' political and caste agenda during the 7th century A.D.
Ashoka was not a "mleccha" king. He was considered a shudra king.
Here's the story. Initially Magadha was ruled by people who currently
belong to the caste of Kurmis (including Kahars who are actually
Kshatriyas of the lunar race). Some of the current subcastes of
Kurmis in Bihar have come from as far away as MP, Rajasthan and
Maharashtra during later times. However, the original Kurmi subcastes
of Bihar largely came from places like Ayodhya and Kasi. Jarasandha
and Sisunaga were of their dynasties. Then some of the Kurmis had
become mixed with the Shudras and the Brahmins refused to accept the
mixed race. Thus the Nandas are termed in the Puranas to be
destroyers of the "kshatriya" race by the Brahmins. And the Nanda
king would not give the throne to the rightful heir because he was
born of a low-caste Shudra woman. But Chandragupta Maurya, the
rightful heir, would defeat him in battle and take over Magadha and
would establish the next Mauryan dynasty. I think Ashoka's own mother
was from the Brahmin caste of north Bihar and definitely not descended
from the Greek queen that Chandragupta had married as a result of a
treaty between the Mauryans and the Greeks. So it would be absolutely
incorrect to deem Ashoka as a "mleccha" king, though the Brahmins may
have indeed called him that just to spite him. The Brahmins most
likely also killed Harshavardhana and allied themselves with the
Rajputs. And so the battle continues.
Therefore, there is a question about the historical authenticity about
claims about the Guptas in Brahmanical writings. Moving of his capital
from east to west is one such possible distortion. Chinese tarvelers to India
during the 6th century report that the subcontinent was still primarily a
Buddhist state and society, so it is difficult to accept the claims made
in Brahmanical writings (from after the 7th century A.D.) that the Guptas
followed Brahmanism.
As I have said, Harshavardhana was devout Buddhist, however
Samudragupta had not been a Buddhist. Samudragupta viewed himself as
a Brahmin and engaged in things like the the Ashwamedha yagna and was
quite favorable to the Brahmins. Chinese travelers such as Hieun
Tsang were actually at the center of the whole Buddhist/Brahmin
controversy which eventually resulted in the assasination of
Harshavardhana.
Jassa
Kunal Singh (nnyxsi@swap31-220) wrote:
: You need to first read the evidence supporting the claims of scholars
: like General Cunningham, Major Todd, and Elliot who first examined
: these coins in addition to other evidence before throwing out your
: wild unsupported conjectures that you dream up at the key board.
: Never heard of these silly historians. I don't believe that people
: from the army should be studying history. I don't dream up anything
: at the keyboard, I will give you a full detailed account of history as
: seen from the eyes of Patliputra.
You dismiss these historians too easily, they are among the most
prominent historians on india. Do you have ANY proof or evidence that
would refute ANYTHING they have said or written about india or indians?
In dismissing such historians so lightly, you have lost credibility and
expect us to believe more of your dreamt up fantasies and fairytales.
Your "explanations" are good in explaining hindu fairytales but friend
you need more than mere opinions to refute the works of historians.