|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
SOCIAL HISTORY upon arms and agriculture.1 They seem to be the same as the Kshattri mentioned in the Manusmṛiti (X. 9). But they are doubtless the same as the Kshatriyas referred to in the Sōhāval plates of the Mahārāja Śarvanātha of Uchchakalpa and the Lāḍṇū inscription of Sādhāraṇa.2 They appear to be represented by the Khatrīs of the modern day. This tribe may very well have been the Kshatriyas whose pride and conceit Gautamīputra crushed down when they were living not far from the confluence of the Chenāb and the Indus. If he went on conquering as far northward as the Śakas, Yavanas and Pahlavas, there is nothing strange in his putting down the Kshatriyas (Khatroi) who lived in that neighbourhood like the Yaudhēyas whom the Mahākshatrapa Rudradāman is similarly reputed to have exterminated.3 What was then the caste of the Śātavāhanas ? That question has to be answered in the light of other evidence. There is a passage in the same Nasik cave inscription where Gautamī Balaśrī, mother of Gautamīputra Śātakarṇi, is called rājarisi-vadhusadaṁ akhilaṁ anuvidhīyamānā,4 “acting in every way befitting the title ‘daughter-in-law’ of the Rājarshis.” It is worthy of note that Brahmarshi and Rājarshi have always been distinguished one from the other, according to lexicons, the former meaning “a Brahmanical sage; a particular class of sages supposed to belong to the Brāhmaṇa caste”, and the latter “a man of the Kshatriya caste who, by his pious life and austere devotion, comes to be regarded as a sage or ṛishi.” It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Śātavāhanas were Kshatriyas, not Brāhmaṇas.
If even after this discussion some doubt still lingers in regard to the Kshatriya origin of
the Śātavāhanas, we will set them aside for the present and consider the Ikshavākus whose
inscriptions have been found in the Āndhra country at Jaggayyapēṭa and Nāgārjunikoṇḍa.
That the Ikshvākus were the Kshatriyas of the solar race is too well-known to be pointed out.
And yet we have in this dynasty three kings who bear metronymics formed out of two Brāhmaṇa gōtras. They are Mahārāja Vāsishṭhīputra Chāṁtamūla,5 his son Mahārāja Māḍharīputra6 Vīrapurushadatta, and the latter’s son Mahārāja Vāsishṭhīputra Ehuvala-Chāṁtamūla.7
Related to these Ikshvākus are personage holding titles of nobility, such as Mahāsēnāpati and
Mahātalavara. Even they bear such metronymics. Thus we have Mahāsēnāpati Mahātalavara Kandasiri (Skandaśrī) of the Pūgīya family8 and Mahāsēnāpati Mahātalavara Khaṁda-Chalikireṁmaṇaka (Skanda-Chalikiraṇaka) of the Hiraṁñaka clan,9 who were both Vāsishṭhīputra. If we turn westwards again and consider the cave inscriptions, we find that even
the feudatory chieftains, styling themselves Mahāraṭhi, Mahāsēnāpati and Mahābhōja, possess
similar metronymics. The question therefore arises: how did these Brahmanic metronymics
come into vogue among the ruling classes who were presumably Kshatriya by caste? According to Bühler, “the explanation is no doubt that these gotras originally were those of the Purohitas of the royal or noble families, from which the queens were descended, and that the kings
were affiliated to them for religious purposes, as the Śrautasūtras indicate.”10 But was it so,
as a matter of fact? Bühler no doubt takes his stand upon the Śrautasūtras. But what they lay
down is that a Kshatriya or Vaiśya should adopt, not the gōtra, but the pravara, of his Purōhita. Thus the Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra11 says: Kshatriya-Vaiśyānām purōhita-pravarō bhavatīti vijñā-
1 Arthaśāstra, XI, line 4.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|