Indian Antiquary Vol 60

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

Page 276

246
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ DECEMBER, 1931
indication has been given as to who this Ramabhadra was, or who his brother was. But the intention seems to be to point to Rama of the Raghu-vama and his brother Lakshmana. Now Bhoja, belonging to the imperial dynasty, must have had greater ambition than that of the potty chiefs Kakkuka and Bauka. He could not remain satisfied with the vague hint, nor with the ordinary meaning of the word protihara, a door-keeper, which after all is a badge of servitude, no matter whether it be of Rama, the incarnation of god Vishnu or somebody else. So a grandiloquent exposition must be found for the word befitting the imperial dignity of his family. Therefore we find in his Gwalior prasasti that the poor Brahman Harichandra has been left out altogether, and the genealogy begins with the Sun. And the name Pratihâra has been derived from pratiharana, which means 'depriving, taking away, or destroying. The incident referred to is the fight of Lakshmana with Meghanada as Slághys=tasy=ánujo=sau Maghava-mada-musho Meghanádasya sankhye Saumittris=tivnedandah pratiharana-vidher=yaḥ pratihåra asit || 3 |
We have so far traced the genesis of the Pratibâras and seen how from the sons of Brâhman by & Kshatriya wife they emerged as full-fledged Kshatriyas of the solar race. Is there any mention in the Ramayana or anywhere else that Lakshmana carned the epithet of Pratihara, so that his descendants came to be known as such towards the end of the ninth century A.D. ? Mr. Ojha has failed to quote any mention of their Raghuvamsi origin before that time. Where had they been from the time of Rama till the time of Harichandra in the sixth century ? Do not the different versions of their origin go to show the obscurity thereof and the fictitiousness of the stories? There remains a very striking fact, that some of these reigning dynasties, such as the Chalukyas, Kadambas, Padihåras, Pallavas, etc., although they claim to be Kshatriyas, trace their descent from the priestly class. Why could not they at once lay claim to be Kshatriyas of the solar or lunar dynasties, which some of them afterwards did! Was it because, according to the eastras, there were no Kshatriyas after the Nandas? Mr. Vaidya says that "Mr. Bhandarkar's treating the Chalukyas and Kadambas as of priestly origin is indeed ridiculous." Again, he says that “the progenitors of all castes or peoples in India are believed to be Rishis especially the seven Rishis."1 We do not know who is ridiculous. Will Mr. Vaidya please state what is the source of his statement that all people in India are the descendants of the seven Rishis? Mr. Vaidya considers it strange that Mr. Bhandarkar should seek to derive any historical inference from these imaginary legends about the progenitors of peoples, and again says that they are important only as traditions, and if traditions are long current they may be treated as proof of race. The Chålukyas of the Deccan looked upon themselves in their oldest documents as born of the Manavya golra, and hence they may be looked upon as Aryan in race. The Kadambas also thought they were born of the same gotra, and hence they also might be looked upon as Kshatriyas and allied in race to the Chalukyas.22 We do not quite follow his arguments. Why could the non-Aryans on becoming kings not invent their genealogy? Again, why should they not be looked upon as of Brahman origin when they not only mention the gotra but also the name of their Brahman forefather, as in the cases of the Kadamba and Chahamâna families? We hope, however, to discuss this matter in some future article.
From the above we are inclined to conclude as follows:
1. The Padihåra clan is of foreign origin. The words Padihara, Rohilladdhi and Pel. lapelli are decidedly non-Sanskritic. This together with their habit of wine-drinking, even when hinduized, tend to prove this. The word Padihåra has been sanskritized, to give it a Sanskrit look and derivation.
2. Harichandra was a Padihåra Brahman. His connection with queen Bhadra, who was a widow of some Kshatriya king, was perhaps a mésalliance, 23 or at best a widow-marriage. He was the procreator or founder of the Padihara kings of Mandor and possibly of Mahodaya or Kanauj.
3. This clan after coming to India became hinduized and merged into different castes according to their occupations. This is the explanation why Padihåras are to be found among different castes.
21 Hist. Med. Hindu Ind., Vol. I, p. 86.
29 Ibid. 23 For a similar ingtance, see Padma purana, Paidla-khanda, Chop. 102 (Anand&srama Series).