Indian Antiquary Vol 60

SR No.: 032552
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1986
Total Pages: 394
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 19 MB

Page 271

DECEMBER, 1931 ]
PADIHARS
241
Pratihárd dvija bhita Brahmanyam ye=bhavan sutäh! Rajří Bhadrd cha yan=súte te bhútá madhu-páyinah | 8 Chatvárs=chardtmajds=tasyám játa bha=dharana-kahamah." |
(Jodhpur Inscription-Ep. Ind., Vol. XVIII, p. 95.) “Asít Pratihara-vamsa-guru-sad-dvijah Sri-Harichandrah Anena rajñl-Kshatriya-Bhadráyd játah Sriman=sutah Sri-Rajjilah."
(Ghatiyala Inscription, No. 1-Ep. Ind., Vol. IX, p. 279.) From the Jodhpur inscription, we learn that Harichandra, a Brahman, married two wives. The first of these was Brahman, the second, rajñi Bhadra, Kshatriya, by caste. How could he marry a rajñi, i.e., a king's wife, unless she was a widow? The Mahamahopadhyâya, apparently to explain away this anomaly, suggests that Harichandra probably had some jdgir, i.e., he was a petty raja. But this also is a gratuitous assumption and an insult to the memory of Harichandra who was Veda-odstr-artha-páraga. Even if it is accepted as probable, it does not explain all the facts. Why shouid only Harichandra's Kshatriya wife be designated as rdjsi and not his Brahman wife? Was this Brahmani not a real wife of Harichandra ? And if Harichandra was a rdja, how is it that his Kshatriya wife alone, and not the Bråbmani, became & rájñi? The question therefore naturally arises : Was this a regular marriage, or did he simply beget sons on rájñt Bhadra, as was done by Vasishtha on the queen of king Kalmashapada ? It is true that the word parinitá has been used in the Jodhpur inscription. But the same inscription describes the Pratibâras as descended once from Harichandra, who was a Brahman, and at another time from Ramabhadra's brother, who was a Kshatriya.. How can both these things be possible, except on the supposition that it was a mésalliance 2 This view is supported by the Ghatiyala inscription No. 1, where there is no mention of marriage at all. There it is simply stated that Harichandra was the guru of the Pratibâravamba, and by him Rajjila was begotten on rájni Bhadra. In the Jodbpur inscription Hari. chandra has been described as prajapati-samo guruh. This may either mean that Harichandra was as venerable as Brahma, the progenitor, or he was as venerable as father, i.e., procreator, but not legal father. The second alternative interpretation rather strengthens our doubt that it was not perhaps a regular marriage, but only a niyoga. We do not know if the system of niyoga was in vogue in Harichandra's time, i.e., in the latter part of the sixth century. If it was a marriage at all, it must have been a widow marriage. Could a Brâhman in that age marry & widow of any other caste ?
Padihêrs are looked upon as Kshatriyas. Although the sons of Harichandra's Bråbman wife have been described as Brahman Pratihâras, sons of his Kshatriya wife have nowhere been distinctly said to be Kshatriyas. They have been described at one time as Pratihâras and at another time as madhu-pdyinah, i.e., "wine-drinkers.' The Mahamahopadhyâya bag taken this in the sense of Kshatriyas. He means to say that, according to the custom of the time, Kshatriyas were wine-drinkers. We do not know that he has any authority for saying that the Kshatriyas were wine-drinkers in the latter part of the sixth century, to such an extent that the term wine-drinker' was a synonym for Kshatriya. This doubtful compli. ment to the whole Kshatriya race is not supported by Mr. C. V. Vaidya. He writes in Vol. II, p. 202, of his book : "The kingly family too abstained totally from drink, from the evidence of the Arab travellers supported by the known example of the Guhilots of Mewad. This is indeed still more creditable that being placed at the head of power the kings abstained from drink totally. Such self-abnegation in power is rarely witnessed in bistory. The ordinary Kshatriyas were temperate in drink and took three cups of wine only !!! The Vaisyas were probably total abstainers. The religious precept of the Smritis is that Brabmins, Kshatriyas and Vaibyas should not drink liquor (lasmad Brahmana-Rajanyau Vaisyas=cha na suram pibet).... Sadras and others drank, for we have evidence in inscriptions that liquor was manufactured and was a good source of revenue." According to this the wine-drinkers, far from being Kshatriyas, fall under the category of 'Sūdras and others. Wbat is meant