Indian Antiquary Vol 60

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 273

DECEMBER, 1031 ]
PADIHARS
243
If we carefully read these verses and those that follow, we find that the Brahmane ustu to procreate children on Kshatriya women in three ways: (1) By going through marriage ceremony with mantras. The children were sararna
(the reading suvarna in the text is apparently a mistake), i.e., Brahmaņs. This is supported also by the Mahabharata (Anutałana-parra, Chap. 48, vs. 3-8), and
by the Kauţiliya artha-sastra (Bk. JJI, Chap. VJJ, pra. 60); (2) By clandestine means (chauryyat). The children were Bhishakas, i.e., physicians, and (3) By vidhi, or ritual merely, without reciting any mantras. The children were Kshatriyas.
Now, as the Pratihåras claim to be Kshatriyas, they were perhaps the children of vidhi, probably niyoga. But there are certain objections to this supposition. The children of niyoga are not the children of the procreator, but of the man from whose wife (kshetra) the children were born. But here we find that the Pratihâras were the sons of the procreator Harichandra. The name of the king-husband of Bhadra is not even mentioned. Besides, if they were the Fons of a Kshatriya king, they would have inherited some kingdom. But we find them described as acquiring power by their own exertion (nija-bhuj-arijita). They are not mentioned as Kshatriyas or kings, but as Pratihêras, madhu-payinah and bhu-dharana-kshamaḥ, i.e., fit to be kings. They, therefore, appear to be the sons of the widow Bhadra, who was formerly the wife of a king, by Harichandra. As Harichandra was a Pratihära, they are called Pratihêras.
Tbat Harichandra was a Pratibara Bråbman is clear, for we find that his sons by both the wives were called Pratiháras. We have already seen that it could not be due to his having held the post of pratihára. He, being a Brahman, was precluded from serving as a pratihára, which according to the Sukra-niti was reserved for a Sadra. Even if it be admitted that he served as a pratihara owing to some untoward ciroumstances, it cannot be believed that his sons, even when they rose into prominence, adopted this family name, which really smacked of servile origin. That they knew of this disadvantage attaching to pratihara as a term of servile designation is clear from their attempt at an explanation, by saying in the Jodhpur inscription that they were the descendants of Ramabhadra's brother, who was a pratihára to Ramabhadra. In the same plate, it is stated they were the sons of the Brahman Harichandra. How are we to reconcile these two contradictory statements? It appears to us that in the Ghatiyala inscription No. 1 the unvarnished true facts have been stated, except that the word Padihárs has been sanskritized into Pratihåra. In the Jodhpur inscription, which was expressly written for the glcrification of ancestors (Gunah=pururam purushanam kirtlyante tena panditaih I guna-kirttir=anasyanti spargga-odsakari yatah || 2), some embellishments have found place. This is the reason why repetitions and contradictions are found in the Jodhpur inscription.
Now, if the clan name Padihara or Pratibára is not derived from the name of the post, to what is it due ! The only other plausible theory, which has gained ground is the theory propounded by Prof. Bhandarkar, according to which Padihåra itself is the clan name. These Padiharas, as their name indicates, were foreigners. On coming to India, they gradually became hinduized and were merged into different castes according to the different occupations they pursued. Their name, Padihår, was sanskritized, to give it a meaning and derivation consistent with the Sanskrit language.
The Mahamahopadhyâya only admits of the existence of Brahman Pratibâras, Kshatriya Pratibaras, and Gajar Pratibaras, but in the quotation' given by him from the book of Bhat Khangår, we find other castes also among the Pratibâras, such as Bhat, Mahajana, Raiberi (rearers of camels, etc.), and Kumbhar (potters). Besides, Padibar is a division of the Ajmer Mers.8
We shall now examine the objections to the theory just set forth. Mr. Vaidya says: "The argument that foreigners becoming kings could enter the Kshatriya caste might be plausible though even that is weak but they could not become Brahmins for there could not have been any incentive to admit them as Brahmins” (Vol. I, p. 85). Mr. Vaidya may not 7 Ibid., p. 168.
8 Bomb. Gazr., Vol. IX, Pt. I, p. 493.