The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations/The origin of the Jat Sansanwal dynasry of Bharatpur

From Jatland Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The full text of this book has been converted into Wiki format by Laxman Burdak.
Back to Index of the Book
The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations

Hukum Singh Panwar (Pauria)

Manthan Publications, Rohtak. ISBN 81-85235-22-8

Chapter VI:The origin of the Jat Sansanwal dynasry of Bharatpur

Introduction

It may be asserted without fear of contradiction that Indian historical tradition has suffered, inter alia, from two great misfortunes.

  • One, the practice of mystifying the origin of the royal dynasties of the Kshatriyas, and
  • the other, the corruption of their genealogical accounts.

Adherence to this undesirable exercise by the ancient and medieval genealogists has created snags, sometimes insoluble, by the students of social history. From Chandragupta Maurya down to Maharaja Surajmal of Bharatpur, we scarcely come across a Kshatriya dyntsty whose origin or properly speaking ethnogenesis is not clouded and genealogies not vitiated. "Scepticism is, however, no more warranted than credulity". Nevertheless, we have not started with any premeditated premise or any prejudice. We have already dilated upon the subject in the previous two chapters. As the saying goes "we do not require a mirror to show the bracelet on the wrist". As a matter of fact, we may suggest to our readers to take up at random the accounts of either a modern dynasty or that of an extinct one and shockingly satisfy themselves that the parentage of its founder is either entirely blotted out or falsified beyond recognition and its pedigrees crippled by confusions. History, however, is undoubtedly replete with references that whenever a Kshatriya ruler expressed his eagerness for recording his genuine parentage and pedigree, he had to pay through his nose.1 Non-payment of the required fee meant shrouding or blackening their origin and mutilation of their genealogies for good. In fact, he, who paid the piper, could call the tune. The Bharatpur dynasty, the subject of our present enquiry, whose origin is enigmatically "Yadavised; and initial ancestry obscured, is no exception.

Court poets of Bharatpur House:

In the middle of the eighteenth century A.D., Sudan, the court-bard of Maharaja Surajmal of the Bharatpur House of the Jat rulers, connected the royal House, popularly known by their gotra name as Sinsinwaras or Sansanwals, with Krishna-Vasudeva through a legendary genealogy.2 Another court-poet, Somnath, and his contemporary bhat, Udai Ram, followed suit. But a genealogy to this effect is conspicuous by its absence in the standard works. Probably the bards got their clue from Al-Biruni, Who, in the eleventh century, asserted that the Krishna- Vasudeva family was Jatt.

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.93

Al-Biruni's view

If Al-Biruni's view is correct, the logical result would be that all Jats, including the Jat founder ruler of Bharatpur, were the Jat descendent of a Jat Krishna-Vasudeva, and not of a Yadava Krishna-Vasudeva. The court bards are the modern Sutas, and are as unreliable in such matters as the Puranas. What they have tried to establish is that the Jat ruler was a descendent of a Yadava Krishna-Vasudeva. So seductive was this theory that even Tod was drawn to this bardic mirage. Subsequently, in the twenties of the twentieth century, C.V. Vaidya (1969, Vol.l:37) a noted historian and contemporary of K.R. Qanungo, declared Nand, the foster father of Krishna as Jat, whereas Qanungo, the premier historian of the Jats, repeated Al-Biruni's verdict about the ethnicity of Krishna-Vasudeva in his esteemed work but conveniently connects the Jats with Yadavas. Adumbrated initially by the court bards and stamped finally with the hall-mark of approval of the giants of medieval history, the theory of the Yadava origin of the Jats in general, and that of the Bharatpur dynasty in particular, readily found favour with the successive generations of writers on the subject.Conently, Ganga Singh, P.C. Chandavat and U.N. Sharma uphold without any convincing rationale this absurd innovation of the bards. However, it goes without saying that Prof. Qanungo, owing to the charm of his style, his unrivalled power of popular exposition as owing also to his high authority as the first and the foremost historian of the Jats, especially of the Bharatpur House, contributed more than any other writer to the spread of this theory and its ready acceptance by Jats whose imagination it tricked and whose hearts it won. It is perhaps On the strength of the views of the afore- mentioned writers that Dr. K.C. Yadav recently observed, in the review of a book on the Jats, that historical evidence has now established that "the Jats are Yaduvanshi Aryans".

The bards in connecting the leading House of the Jats with Krishna, the supposed Yadava of the Epic and the Puranas on the one hand and some writers believing him (Krishna) to be the Jatt of Al-Biruni on the other, have demonstrated considerable craft in devising a stratagem that pleased, equally, the Jats and the Yadavas, and brought these inventive bards and their descendents plenty ,by way of grants from both, on which to flourish for generations. We should not forget that the theory is the product of "the medieval age characterized by


The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.94

unfettered gowth of superstitions, decay and death of the spirit of inquiry in sciences, thought and practical life" Those were the times "when men were not careful enough to sift fact from fiction". Surprisingly, some writers3 have recently tried to rationalize the theory by upholding that the Yadava, Jat and Abhir (Ahir) were different appellation; assigned to some composite race. Virtually, the Yadavas have, since time immemorial, been a heterogeneous stock with which were latched and confused many other tribes.

The spate of interpolations in Yadava genealogies, already noted by us in a previous chapter, are misinterpreted by present writers as admixturs or inter-mixture. The process was started with the Haihaya (Scythians) and their five tribes, then were interpolated the Satvatas (the Vratya Vaishyas or Shudras), the Vrsnis (the Varshneya Vaishyas), the Kukuras (the Khokharas), the Abhiras (the Ahirs)3a, and finally, the Jat Kshatriyas of the Bharatpur House. This is the social background of the Yadava descent theory, and it has become a firmly establisher tradition with the Jats of Bayana and Bharatpur. It carries conviction with the descendents of the dynasty under review who firmly believe that they are Yadu-Jats and take pride in it. Consequently an impartial a id thoroughly sifting investigation into their origin may not be free from hazards. Any effort to prove that they are not Yadava may not be to their taste and the investigator may incur the displeasure of certain Jat as well as of the Yadavas.

Be that as it may, the subject calls for inquiry. So far as the Yadava origin of the Jats, in general, is concerned, we hardly find a finger raise d in protest against it except by Yogindarpal Shastri, but in case of the Yadava origin of the Bharatpur dynasty he, too, could not free himself from the "irresistible" impulse and abided by the current opinion. The Yadava origin of the Jats in general has already been discussed at length separately and has been rejected as untenable. The arguments advanced by its exponents as well as by their adherents in its support were found sensational rather than sound.

The origin of the Bharatpur dynasty

Now we venture to probe the origin of the Bharatpur dynasty. The genealogy of the dynasty, as constructed by the Bhats, is reproduced by Ganga Singh in his book. It is nothing, as our scrutiny reveals, but a farrago of fabrication making it a confused mass of names. It begins with Yadu and ends with the, present Maharaja Brijender Singh (Cf. Appendix No.1).

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.95


On comparison, we find that all the standard books, the Mahabharata and the Puranas end the genealogies of the Yadavas with Krsna and his son, Samba. It is, however, extremely hopeless to note that there is no unanimity where Krsna stands in the genealogy. He is represented in 94th, 79th and 43rd steps respectively by Pargiter4, Dr. Siddhantashastree5 and the bhats6. A perusal of the suggested genealogy indicates that the names given at the 11th, 13th, 21st, 29th, 30th, 31st, 36th, 37th, 38th and 39th steps before Vasudeva and Krishna do not tally with those given in the Puranas and the Great Epic. These are merely fictitious names interpolated by the bards and they have thus, hopelessly distorted the whole genealogy. Its authenticity was, all the more miserably shaken when the ancient Kuru-vansa and Puru-vansa as such, were latched on at 29th and 31st steps respectively. Those who concocted this obviously self contradictory genealogy and those who accepted it uncritically, remind us of one blind man leading another. All the more surprising is the fact that though Indian literature has no record at all of the successive Yadava genealogies, the Charanas and Bhats have managed this web of spurious names totally from their fancy.

The literary evidences

The literary evidence, however, supports the presence of the Yadava, Andhaka-Vrsnis in the Mathura territory . But, as our investigations have a ready indicated, the Satvata-Andhaka-Vrisnis were not Yadava, nor the archaeological (BRW) findings, nor numismatic evidence, nor even the inscriptional testimony corroborate their occupation of the region. No doubt, sporadic evidence of BRW commonly associated with the Yadavas, (800 B.C. to 300 B.C.) as available from Bayana and Bharatpur 7 area but we know that the Yadavas had, for fear of Jarasandha, fled the area for good and lived in Dwarka where they were destroyed by their internecine massacres. The PGW genrally associated with the Pauravas and the Aiksvakas (Surasenas-descendents of Shatrughana) was succeeded by BRW in the region.

The BRW may as much be attributed to the Matsyas8 who dominated the area from the Rigvedic times, as it is ascribed to the occasional advances9 of the Yadavas towards north from their permanent home in South-Western India. Although Dr. Arun Kumar9a

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.96

rejects completely the Aryans and the Dravidians as the authors of the BRW, yet the opinion of the archaeologists9b weigh in favour of the latter. But they were not Yadavas.

The contiguous region of Mathura was held by the Surasenas by the time of Varahamihira. They were subdued by the Guptas (Dharana Jats) and Harshavardhana, (the Virka Jat). The triangular territory, including Bayana and Bharatpur, formed by Agra, Delhi and Jaipur, was swept, as the Inscriptional and nunusmatic evidence show, by the Arjunayanas, the Yaudheyas, Uddhehikas and the Salvas10, the republican tribes, whose descendents11 are now unmistakably found in the Jats and Rajputs of the region. From 8th century A.D. to the 12th century A.D., the Tomar12 Jats held sway over Delhi, Mathura, Bayana, Gwalior and Malwa. Of course, there are some pockets of the Ahirs, known as Ahirwal or Ahirvati, but they are the descendents of the Abhiras who cannot be sensu stricto called Yadava. They got their genealogies confused with the Yadavas13 and are not, in fact, Yadava.

Notwithstanding all this, the most unfortunate thing is that the Charans and Bhats never mentioned any of these tribes and their ethnic names in their accounts. Instead, however, they never exhausted their ink and efforts to implant the Yadavas in the region under review with one pretext or the other. Over and above the spuriousness of the genealogy under review, we also come across a number of glaring instances of distortion of historical facts, perpetrated and perpetuated, at the instance of vested interests, by the legendary minstrels and encomiasts of the medieval chiefs of the region not only render them all still more unworthy of trust but also' vitiated history to mislead the successive generations of the teachers and students of the subject.

As for instance, Bayana was made the scene of the marriage of Anirudha, the grandson of Krishna. But we know it for certain from the Visnu Purana14 that "Krishna demanded in marriage for his grandson, the gallant prince Anirudha, the grand-daughter of Rukmin; and although the latter was inimical to Krishna, he betrothed the maiden (who was his son's daughter) to the son of his own daughter (her cousin Anirudha)". The cross-cousin marriage, undoubtedly, reflects a southerly custom. "Upon the occasion of the nuptials Rama (Balrama) and other Yadavas accompanied Krishna to Bhojakata, the city of Rukmin, where he solemnised the wedding. Krishna, taking with

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.97


him the newly wedded Anirudha and the Yadava tribe, returned to Dwarka"15. In addition to this, the Purana, describes another marriage of Anirudha with Usha, daughter of Bana, son of Bali of the eastern Anavas 16. But it is astonishing to note that this marriage was celebrated through the magic power of her companion - princess friend, Chitralekha, the daughter of Kubhand, the minister of Bana, only in the dream-land of mythology17.


Further, the extremely surprising fact is that the bhats ignored the real marriage of Anirudha, who is represented in the 45th generation of the alleged Yadava genealogy concocted for the Bharatpur dynasty, and planted the scene of his mythological wedding with Usha, daughter of Bana, at Bayana. The town is said to have derived its name from Bana (Asura), which is a philological fallacy. Anirudha is made to have constructed a temple in memory of Usha, which is said to still exist there18. But we have evidence to show that the temple tale is also a fabrication. Actually the said temple was built by Chitralekha; the queen of Laxaman, a Pratihar ruler of Bayana in 956 A.D19. The scenario of the marriage of Anirudha, as hinted at by Wilson, was South-Western India20 and Bana, his mythological father-in-law, was shown as an Asura whereas - Rukmaratha his actual father-in-law, was substituted by Rukmin who is nowhere given in the genealogy of the rulers of Vidarbha21.

The Pauranics, in fact, mythologised history and their modern counterparts or disciples, the bhats, tried to "historicalize" those mythological legends, thus making the confusion of the myths more confounded. Cunningham has very aptly observed "that the ascription of a demon character or demoniacal attributes to certain historical individuals, or to certain probably really plain human personages whose memory is preserved in Indian traditions, or to certain ancient tribes of India, was simply a cunningly designed piece of malicious spite on the part of the old Brahman hierarchy, in order to stigmatise and cast odium upon certain individuals who denied or refused to recognise the self-assumed universal superiority and supremacy of the Brahman hierarchy ... and sought to damn and render odious the whole race, and even the very descendents of such persons for ever"22.

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.98

The installation of Anirudha at Indraprastha after the fratricidal massacre of the Yadavas at Dwaraka, is another example of Brahmanical concoction, for we know that, besides the women, Vajra was the only male Vrishni member. the supposed Yadava who was escorted by Arjuna to Indraprastha where only he and not Anirudha, was established as chief of the remnant women (and children) of the Yadavas23. Even the correctness of the Vajra episode, as noted before, is questioned by C.V.Vaidya24. Vajra is said24a to have belonged to the Vrishnis, who were Varshneya Vaishyas24b. They are shown as a sub-section in the Yadava genealogies24c. There is, however, no unanimity among scholars whether Vajra was installed by Yudhishthira at Indraprastha or Mathura or Hastinapur25. Latest investigation indicate that Vajra was most probably used as "lectio difficilior" for Vajranabha Aiksvaka by the Puranakrt26. If this is correct, it means the authors of the Epic and the Puranas interpolated Vajranabha as merely Vajra in the Yadava genealogy in the manner in which Surasena, son of Shatrughana was represented as Sura in the Vrishni line. That Vajra is often called Vajranabha, all the more confirms our suspicion that the diminutive of the latter's name was exploited in the ancient literature.

In the interest of historical veracity we must learn to disregard such absurd fables. We have to "school our minds to forget and for ever to discard, with suspicion and contempt", the web of lies woven round fictitious persons in order, arbitrarily, to fabricate genealogies to please royal houses, as was obviously the case of the one connected with the Bharatpur dynasty. To us it is clear that these concoctions and inventions concerning the origin of this dynasty are totally garbled and perverted, by the bardic hierarchy of the medieval days, for a consideration. For example, there is one Sindhupal, the alleged Jadon Rajput, represented at 98th step in the Yadava genealogy constructed for and associated with Bharatpur rulers. He is said to have come from Orissa and to have-re-established Yadava rule in the region, popularly known as Saurasena or Braja, in the 7th century of the vikrami era27. The historians generally quote the Gazetteer of Rajputana which depended in turn on the manuscript of the bhats who are not considered genuine sources of information on the origin commonly ascribed to the various tribes and rulers of Kshatriya families of medieval India.

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.99

The amazing facts

The amazing fact about Sindhupal, the Jadon-Rajput, is that the standard works on medieval India are entirely silent about him and his whereabouts whereas the bar die accounts of one bhat show him in the 60th generation of the alleged Vajranabh (Vajra) and in those of another we find him at the 98th step as the genealogy stands28. Equally surprising is the occurrence of one Rikshpal in the 6th generation of the fictitious Sindhupal as mentioned by U.N. Sharma29 but he does not support this piece of information with any authentic evidence. Still more startling is the absence of the name in the supposed genealogy.

History bears testimony that in the absence of a central power after Harshavardhana, the Virk, the different parts of north-western India witnessed vicissitudes, up to about the onset of the 13th century, of various dynasties the names of the rulers of which ended with the suffix "pal" During the period under review, sovereignty like a whore rested region-wise with the powerful Palas of Bengal, the Partiharas of Gujrat, Shahis of Gazni and Panjab, Tomars of Delhi, Bayana, Gwalior and Malwa. The similarity of the Pal-ending names of the rulers of these dynasties, however, created so much confusion that the meagerly educated bards and bhats, with their own bias and prejudice, failed to discriminate among them and confused several separate genealogies so indiscriminately in utter disregard for chronological order and dynastic connections that a layman or even a historian is baffled to sort them out correctly. Like the crafty authors of the Puranas, the bhats and charans, designed and worked on the cunning device of concealing the racial and ethnic identity of the personages while interpolating the namesakes in the genealogies other than those of their own.

Fictitious genealogy fabricated for the rulers of Bayana and Karauli

Consequently, we have altogether an entirely fictitious genealogy fabricated for the rulers of Bayana and Karauli with which the rulers of Bharatpur were linked. The Pal-ending names from number 98 to 111 in it were represented mainly as Yadava which they, as will be presently shown, were certainly not. Relying only on the Khyats of certain bhats of Karauli etc., the writers on the Bharatpur house injudiciously accepted the so called genealogy. What is even more surprising is that even Dr. Ganguly30, too, at the risk of losing a bit of his reputation as an impartial historian, placed his reliance on the creations of the bhats and came to the conclusion that "chiefs of Bayana and Karauli in the first half of the 11th century may be Yadava". He also mentions some epigraphical records as the basis of this conclusion

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.100

despite the fact that the epigraphs cited by him do not mention the Word Yadava at all as the ethnic appellation of the chiefs described in those records. However, his claim is not supported by others. Strangely enough, he does not mention Sindhupal who was vociferously made by the bhats as the so called reviver of the Yadava rule in the region.

The Tomara origin of Bharatpur dynasty

As a matter of fact, the latest researches arm us in a big way to negate the false assertions of the bards and the subsequent writers who, probably as apostles of the Brahmanical tradition, blindly followed the former. Dr. Hariniwas Dwivedi31, discontented and disgusted with doubtful literary evidence furnished by the Khyats and manuscripts of the Jagas, utilized archaeological and epigraphical, inscriptional and numismatic evidence in writing a comprehensive history of the Tomars, the medieval rulers of Delhi and Gwalior etc. He further reinforced his findings with his field-studies of the occasionally inhospitable areas. He32 confidently asserts that the contemporary a Yadava chiefs of Sripath (Bayana), Tribhavangarh (Tahangarh) etc., represented wrongly, as Yadavas, were, in fact, Tomars and not Yadavas. Cunninghum33 also confirms, on the basis of numismatic evidence, that Sullaksanpa, Ajaypal, Kumarpal, Anangpal and Mahipal, the rulers of Delhi and Kanauj were Tomar. In fact, they are the predecessors and ancestors of Vijaypal and Madanpal. Dwivedi34 further informs us that Anangpal II :the founder of Tribhavangarh or Tribhavangiri (Tahangarh), and Vijaypal that of Vijaymandirgarh, were Tomar and not Yadava. In view, of this evidence, It may safely concluded that the credit of building the former garh given to Tihunpal, a Samant of Anangpal II at that place, is baseless. Real facts, thus, defeat the inventions of the bhats and jagas.

It may, en passant, be observed that Tomar as a sub-caste is not found among the Yadavas. Its absence, among the Yadavas, however, does not prove its non-existence, Interestingly, the Tomars constitute a fairly large section of the Jats in U.P., Rajasthan and Haryana. Their main sections are Chapotkat or Chabuk or Chawra, Rawat, Bhind, Antal and Jatran or Jatav35. Their tradition nowhere connects them with the Yadavas and supports their descent from Parikshit, the last known ruler of the Pandavas.According to C.V. Vaidya36, a renowned historian of medieval Hindu India, the Pandavas after Parikshit were known in the days of Buddha only as a mountain tribe who were survived

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.101

by the Tomars who re-established an empire at Delhi in the 8th century under Anangpal and continued to be the foremost race of India till the beginning of the 13th century, when Prithvi Raj ChaUhan.37 a relative of the last Tomar (Tuar) King, lost the empire to Shahabudin Ghori and the Tomars sought refuge across the Chambal in Gwalior. Prof. Habibullah37a, an authority on the "foundation of Muslim rule in India:, has interestingly pointed out that Prithvi Raj II (Rai Pithora of Delhi) belonged to the Tomar dynasty. But, unfortunately, he is presented as Chauhan in history. In view of the above evidence, we can mot resist remarking that there can be no more naked example than this to distort and misrepresent historical facts.


It is a pity that, over and above the Bhats and Jagas, the modern writers, in spite of the above unimpeachable evidence, also follow the purblind path of shutting the eyes to reality, and invariably seem to have the inexplicable weakness of connecting the Bharatpur House with the Yadavas and not with the Tomars. Probably the last important iaterpolation, relied on and publicized by subsequent writers, in what is claimed to be the Yadava genealogy of the Bharatpur dynasty, was that of an allegedly "gotraless!" person named, Balchand, of village Sinsini at step No. 116, i.e, 17 steps before Badan Singh, father of Maharaja Surajmal38. As a descendent in the 4th generation of Thakur Suai, son of Madanpal and grandson of Vijaypal, Balchand was, through a cock and bull anecdote, first made the Jadon Rajput hero, and then shown as excommunicated by the Rajput "biradari" for forcibly marrying the Saurot "gotri" Jat wife of another Dagar "gotri" Jat. Thereafter, he is said to have adopted Sinsinwar or Sansanwal, the name of his village, as his gotra and was made to mix up with the Jats of that region, and was finally declared and represented as the founder ancestor of the Sinsinwar dynasty Bharatpur39.

But genealogical fabricators forgot that Balchand's father and grandfather, as described above, were Tomar and thus his gotra must be Tomar. Commonsense, however, refuses to accept that he was gotraless". Apart from the other and detailed objections to this theory (Supra-preceding chapter), this story fails to stand scrutiny. Abduction was a way of life in that period. After all Prithviraj abducted the daughter of Jaichand, and attracted no censure: instead, he earned fame and name as a chivalrous Rajput hero! Why should Rajputs

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.102

ostracise Balchand for abducting a woman from a rival biradari? Such a "feat" is more likely to be regarded as a meritorious act. We may add to these observations and those made in the preceding chapter a few more. If the abduction episode imputed to Balchand, by Ganga Singh and others is true, the excommunicated Balchand must have, under duress, concealed his identity not as a Jadon Rajput, but as a Tomar chief in favour of his adopted gotra as Sinsinwar or Sansanwal in that village, for otherwise also we know that tradition always allowed the families in minority in a village to merge their gotra with that of the majority in that very village and consequently the family is also known by the latter's gotra. To be specific, as the accounts indicate, after the death (suicide) of Vijaypal (who was defeated by Gaznivides) the former's faithful Chobdar escorted the family of Madanpal, the son of the deceased Vijaypal, and hid them in Sinsini, an Important village in his Jagir, bestowed on him by Vijaypal40. Suai, the eldest of the five sons of Madanpal, preferred to stay on in Sinsini and may have given himself out as Sisinwar instead of Tomar as a part of the plan to hide his real Identify, which was not uncommon in adversity.


This fact is amply borne out by the observance of a similar stratagem by his four younger brothers when they settled in other villages the names of which, or respective gotras of the Jat populations of which, were adopted by them as their own. Their progeny were known simply as Jats. For exaple, Kahnadev settled in Saugar village of Dagur Jats but his disscendents were knowns Saugaria Jats, Biram settle a in Nugaon in the Ganga-Jamuna doab and his descendents adopted Aga gotra of its Jat population and became Agagotri Jats, Basatpal settled in Mandor, a village in Agra district, and his descendents were known as Manderna or Maderna Jats and Surdev lived m Khoh, a village near Deeg, and his progeny was known as Khohai which was later on Persianised as Khanzadey41. They (as the name suggests) might have embraced Islam. It is quite astonishing that if the five sons of Madanpal, the, alleged Yadava of the Bhats & Jagas, were Yadava, as they would have us believe why did they seek asylum only in the Jat Villages & not in the Yadava villages? and why did they hide their prestigious pristine identity? The only plausible answers to these questions can be that they must be Jats and have thus acted upon the proverbial advice, to wit, that "blood is always thicker than water". This clearly suggests that they were not Yadavas out Jats.

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.103

In view of the above discussion, it may, without any shadow of doubt, be logically concluded that Madanpal and his four sons were Tomar and were forced to go in hiding, for Madanpal and his eldest son, Suai could be saved only by assuming a pseudo gotra which happens to be Sinsinwar. This is how misfortune compelled his descendents to repudiate their own gotra Tomar and be known as Sinsinwars. In the given circumstances, the cock and bull story concocted about Balchand by the bhats and jagas at a later stage may be merely their manipulation to camounage this reality.

Qanungo and Girish C. Dwivedi, whose work on the Jats, Posthumously published, and considered the most authentic so far, inform us that the immediate ancestors of Badan Singh, father of Maharaja Surajmal, were Churaman, Rajaram and Bhajja Singh, landlords of Sinsini42. But they are surprisingly conspicuous by their absence in the genealogical accounts of the Dynasty given by Ganga Singh. However, it is any body's guess whether they fall in the direct line of Balchand.

Who were Tomars

Since we hold the ancestors of the Bharatpur House to be Tomar, it will not be out of place to know who the Tomars were. We have already noted that the triangle formed by Agra, Delhi and Jaipur, including Bayana and Bharatpur, was, as the inscriptional and numismatic evidence indicate, dominated by the Arjunayanas, Yaudheyas and Uddehikas, whose descendents are said43 to exist among the Jats and Rajputs. However, it is well nigh impossible to imagine that these tribes might have disappeared in the thin air. The Yashastilakchampu44, a Jain work compiled by Soma Deva Suri, attests the presence of the Yaudheyas in the 10th and 11th centuries AD. Awadh Biharilal AWasthi45 finds the Yauddheyas of Bayana teaching a lesson to Balban in Mewat so as not to put his hand again in the hornet's nest. Kalyan Kumar Das Gupta46 also confirms their existence as well as that of the Arjunayans in the 11th and 12th centuries AD. in the triang1llar territory mentioned above. We also know from the Brihatsamihita of Varahamihira47 that the Yaudheyas and the Arjunayanas formed a close association. In fact, they were the constituent members of the one and the same Samgha (confederacy).

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.104

Interestingly, writers48 trace the origin of the Yaudheyas from Yudhishthira and that of the Arjunayanas from Arjuna, the brother of Yudhishthira. This tradition is echoed in the Puranas and subsequent literature also. If these origins of theirs are correct, both of the tribes can be unquestionably reckoned as the descendents of the Pandava brothers. In other words, it may be said that they were agnatic cousins. The Arjunayanas are said49 to have merged with their friend-confederates or Cousins, the Yaudheyas. In fact, they were the people, who populated50 and dominated the area which later on constituted and was known as the Bharatpur State. So much so, that the region occupied by them was known as Arjunayanaka for a period.

The more interesting facts relevant to out purpose are the revelation;-by K.K. Das Gupta51 that the Arjunayanas, according to,Chandra's Vyakarana (11,4,122) and Kasika (on Panini, 11.4.66), belonged to Bharat gotra. Some of the branches of the Tomars, according to Yoginderpal Shastri52, were also known as Arjunayana Pundir or Paundir. In the Rohitashgarh stone inscription53 of Mitrasen dated V.S. 1688 (1630 AD.) the Tomars of Gopachal (Gwalior) are said to be of the Pandava lineage. The tradition of the Tomars also support their descent from Parikshita54, Mitrasen was himself, according to Harmiwas Dwivedi, a Tomar who hailed from the royal branch of the Tomars of Gwalior55.

In view of the above evidence we are in a position to safely conclude that the Arjunayanas, the agnates of the Yaudheyas in the triangular territory formed by Delhi, Jaipur and Agra, enclosing Bayana Bharatpur, were the descendents of the Pandava hero Arjuna and Tomars, who belonged to Bharat gotra, were the descendents of Parikshita, the grandson of Arjuna. The fact that Churaman (1695-1721 A.D.), the founder of the Bharatpur dynasty, also founded a city of the name of Bharatpur which subsequently was made the capital of the state, in the beginning of the 17th century AD., proves beyond doubt that he must have been related with the Tomars who belonged to Bharat gotra and must have built the city in memory of their celebrated ancestor Bharata, (who gave his name not only to his descendents but also to the country as a whole- Vaidya, 1904: Ch. III), or more probably to commemorate the victory of their ancestors (Pandavas) in the Bharat war, for surely we know that it has been a universal practice to name

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.105

countries, towns, mountains and rivers, especially in newly developed regions, after discoverers, conquerors, founders and celebrated men or some of their extra-ordinary exploit or unique characteristic.

The foundation of Sinsini

Similarly, the foundation of Sinsini can be attributed to another Tomar Chief in memory of Satyaki56 one of their ancestors among the Pandavas, whose name was also Sini. But U.N. Sharma57 and Yogindarpal58 accredit Suai Thakur with its building. However, this does not seem to be correct. The fact that the Chobdar gave shelter to Madanpal and his sons in Sinsini amply proves that the village was already there in the Jagirdari of the Chobdar. No doubt, Sini and Satyaka are also shown in the genealogy59 of the Vrsnis but we have already rejected it as a later interpolation. Moreover, the descendents of this Sini were known as Sainyas60 and never as Sinsinwar or Sinsinwal. There can, however, be no two opinions about the prominence gained by Sinsini as a hide-out for Madanpal his five sons whom we proved to be descendents of the Tomar dynasty of Delhi. Since Suai chose to stay in Sinsini; the jagas, the source of U.N. Sharma61,-mistook Suai as its founder. At best, he can be said to have revived the name of the village Which might have fallen into oblivion. To Desh Raj, the name of Sinsini was Surseni, which needs further probe.

Why connected with Yadava genealogies

However, there are two more problems vitally concerning our investigation, i.e. how and when the Tomars were possibly connected with the Yadava genealogies? For answers, we can safely depend on Dr. Romila Thapar. While discussing the significance of genealogy as ; source of social history, she62 very aptly remarks that assignment to a particular lineage, more or less, depended on geographical proximity, political authority and status of the new group, and to crown all, on the loyalty and closeness of the group to the Brahman who was to construct the lineage link. We also learn from he that earlier, when the Haihayas, Madhavas,Satvatas, Andhakas and Vrishnis, the pastoral and semi-agricultural tribes of South-western India,equally raised their status with political and economic autonomy, and likewise in later tunes when the Abhiras (Ahirs) established their kingdom in that very region, all those people formed the tribal segments in the lineages of the Yadavas as a means of acquiring social status and started claiming

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.106

Yadava descent, even though the mutual kinship relations of the above tribes and that of theirs with the Yadavas may, as she doubts, and rightly so, be merely fictional.

Interestingly, we further gather from her64 that genealogies were constructed to provide Kshatriya status to those tribes or castes which had produced ruling families. As is self-evident, since monarchy (Kingship) became or was made a pre-condition for latching on a particular tribe(s) to a genealogy of an ancient royal dynasty, the Yaudheyas, Mallavas and Arjunayanas65, though hailing from royal dynasties, were omitted from validation in the genealogies for they were either oligarchic or republican in the form of their government.

Dr. Romila Thapar, in fact, richly deserves our credit for enlightening us as to why certain tribes, desirous of raising their social and political status, modified their political set-up. They did so to ensure for themselves an honourable place in the genealogies of the royal Yadavas, which, as we have already noted in case of the Bharatpur dynasty, which , constructed afresh by the genealogy-mongers. Consequently, in view of the social process obtaining since long, it is quite logical to conclude that the Arjunayanas could not manage or were not assigned by the bards a place in the genealogy of any dynasty, ancient or medieval, so long as they remained republican in their constitution.

But as soon as their descendents, the Tomars (or Tanwars or Tuars), carved out an independent state (Delhi) for themselves, thus switching over to the institution of hereditary monarchy, (a form of government so loved and longed for by the parasite priests and their agents), the "bhats, Charans and jagas" conferred the status of a high lineage on the dynasty of Tomars who reigned in Delhi from Anangpal (736 A.D.) to Chaharpal (1193 A.D.). In their characteristically bungling manner, however, these inept encomiasts confused the genealogies of Yadavas as Jadon Rajputs.

Sometimes we may be considered unfair to the geneaiogy compilers in holding them responsible for hooking up certain Kings or dynasties with some ancient lines of repute to cater to the purposeful eagerness of the novice aspirants who somehow or other became the rulers of a state. The rise of the Rajputs, who were ranked as Kshatriyas, a designation reminiscent of good old glory and regnal status thus

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.107


bound to evoke in the non-Rajput rulers envious emotions and sentiment of rivalry to emulate the neo- Kshatriyas. This ultimately roused them also to manipulate, through their court bards etc. the interpolation of their lineage with that of the one who have had a name and fame in the by-gone age, even though the lineal relationship be merely fictional. In such a situation the Tomars of Delhi are least expected to remain an exception, especially when the Tanwars and Tuars, their own kith and kin, had started to align themselves with the genealogies of the Aiksvkas after their baptism as Rajputs.

New genealogical tables were sprung on the public with a touch almost of drama. Such genealogies were quietly compiled and made public as startling revelations centuries after the event had taken place. This stratagem was also necessary to avoid any contradiction from contemporary quarters. Dr. Romila Thapar66 holds similar views regarding the belated compilation of genealogies. We can now, as the matters stand, easily understand why the Tomar dynasty, founded by Anangpal I (736- 754 A.D.) was 'Yadavised', i.e. "merged" in the Yadava genealogies almost 400 years later, only after the death of Vijayapal (1130-1159 A.D.), the last important king of the dynasty. The "revelation" of the genealogy came when the family of Madanpal, the son of deceased Vijaypal, was secretly rescued by their faithful Chobdar to Sinsini, the name of which village was later on used by Madanpal's descendents as their gotra. This is how they are represented in the bardic accounts as Jadon-Rajputs and not as Jats, which they were later on made after the got-up story of Balchand.


The most pertinent question some of the writers raise is that since the Tomar Jats, as the direct descendents of the Pandavas through Parikshita as well as of the Arjunayanas who also descended from Arjuna, the great grand-father of Parikshita, had an equally enviable and honourable ancestry and antiquity, why were they merged in the genealogies of the Yadavas and represented as Jadon-Rajputs? The only reasonable explanation to the query we may offer is that the professional genealogy fabricators must have at a later stage exploited the intimate friendship and close relationship of Arjuna, the ancestor of the Tomars, with his confidante charioteer, Krishna, the alleged scion of the Yadavas, for the apparently justifiable validation of Arjuna's descendents in the genealogies relating to Krishna. The hypothesis

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.108

worked upon by the crafty fabricators was, to all intents and purposes, essential to create a credibly acceptable impression, such as it is, on posterity.

Consequently, because of such clever manipulations we also sometimes feel ourselves critically juxtaposed in our investigation of the ethnic affiliation of the Bharatpur dynasty. If, for instance, emboldened by our findings, we assert that the ancestors of Jat rulers of the dynasty under review were Tomars, who also ruled over Delhi, pat may come the objection from some critics who may cite the Bardic records to negate our claim and advert vehemently that they were Jadon-Rajputs. However, such advertences and the ingenious fabrications need not perplex us any more. We have already exploded the hollowness of the hypothesis propounded by those who wish to obliterate the name Jat from the face of all important tribes that counted in history from the Mauryas to the Tomars. An empty vessel, they say, always makes much noise. Fire is always fire though covered with ash. A wolf can not change iyself into a sheep in the latter's skin howsoever thick it may be. A horse does not become an ass if tended in the latter's stable. The Tomar progenitors of the Jat rulers of Bharatpur, who are still known as Jats, cannot be Yadava in the genealogical garb of the latter. In the end, it may, in nut-shell, be remarked that the curtain is "Yadavan" and the picture, concealed behind it, is that of the "Tomaran". This is not a solitary example.

Surprisingly, many of the Medieval upstarts had, for their love of status, made themselves the dupe of designing knaves, and to the uninitiated their works, pregnant with the like deceptions, are more often that not, more difficult to appreciate. Ultimately, it may be remarked that had the genealogical accounts of the dynasty of Bharatpur, as presented by Ganga Singh, been genuine,K. Natwar Singh67, would not have ignored it in its entirety and begun it only with Khan Chand in his most authentic and esteemed book on Maharaja Surajmal of Bharatpur.

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.109

Notes and References

1. Shivaji, Rana Udai Singh and a host of other Kshatriya rulers.
2. Singh, Ganga; Yaduvamsa, Vol. I (Bharatpur Rajansa Ka Itihas) Kothi Sri Ganga Vihar, Anaah Gate, Bharatpur, 1967, pp. 19-21. Unfortunately he does not give the sources of the genealogy. However, he must have depended upon the bardic manuscripts and the 'Khyaats' of the bhats,
3. Dr. Rajbali Pandey, Vithal Krishnaji Khedkar (Yadava) and Dr. Raghunath Vithal Khedkar (Yadava), etc.
3a. Thapar, Romila; Ann. Ind. Soc. His. 1990,pp.326-360.
4. Pargiter, op.cit., p. 148.
5. His. of Pre-Kalyuga Ind., pp. 137 (up to Satvata) and the rest up to Krishna on p. 144.
6. Ganga Singh, op.cit., p. 20.
7. Ghurye, G.S.; Vedic Ind., pp. 380f. 385, 398f.
8. Ibid. Romila Thapar, "Puranic Lineages and Archac. Cultures" in Puratattva. No. 8, 1975-76, pp. 86-98.
9. Ibid.
9a. The Prow-historic BRW, A Plea for Neolithic Origin, India, Vol. xi, No. 1, Bombay, March, 1975, p. 22.
10. S.B. Chaudhuri, M.K Saran, K.K. Das Gupta, Bela Lahiri, KP. Jayaswal, M.R. Singh, S.M. Ali, etc. may please be referred to.
11. Discussed in chaps. VII & VIII of the book.
12. Cr. Reference no. 34 infra.
13. Upadhyaya, B.S.; Feeders of Ind. Cul., N. Delhi, 1973, p. 81; Wilson, H.H.; Eng. Trans. of Vishnu Purana, Punthi Pustak, Calcutta-4, 1961, p. 367, fn. 64.
14. Wilson, op.cit., P. 457.
15. Ibid., 458.
16. Ibid., pp.465-66.
17. Ibid., p. 466.
18. Shastri, Yoginder Pal; Jat Kshatriya Itihas, Kankhal, p. 130.
19. Singh, Ganga; op.cit., p. 22.
20. Wilson, op.cit., p. 467, fn. I; Wiltoro, As. Res. Vol.IX, p. 199; or in Assam (As. Res., Vol. XIV, p. 443).
21. Wilson, op.cit., p. 338-39; Pargiter, AIHT, p. 269; Cr. also Siddhantashastree, op.cit., p. 137-141.
22. Cunningham, Arch. Sur. Rep., Vol. VI, p. 63.
23. Wilson, op.cit., p. 480, fn. 13.
24. Vaidya, C.V.; Mahabharata (A Criticism). pp. 18-21,32,159.
24a. Pargiter, AIHT. p. 284 and fn. 7.

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.110

24b. Manu, X, 23; Shafer, Ethnog. of Anc. Ind., p. 152.
24c. Sec Ref. No. 62 infra.
25. Ganga Singh installs him in Braj (op.cit., p. 25), some even say that he was made ruler of Mathura or of Hastinapur.
26. U.N. Sharma use Vajranabh instead of Vajra (Loc. cit.).
27. Sharma, Upendra Nath; Jaton Ka Navin Itihas, Mangal Prakashan, .rarpur, 1977, p. 57.
28. Ibid.; Ganga Singh, op.cir., p. 21.
29. Sharma, op.cit., p. 58; but Ganga Singh does not give any such name name inthe genealogy in his book.
30. Ganguli, D.e.; His. and Cul. of Ind. People, Vol. V. (The Struggle for Empire), Bombay, p. 55.
31. Tomron Ka Itihas, Bhag I (Dilli Ke Tomar, -736 AD. to -1193 AD), Vid. Mand. Prakashan, Murarr, Gwaloar-6, 1973.
32. Ibid., 271.
33. Catalogue of Coins in Ind. Museum, Cal. Vol. I, by Vincent Smith, Oxf.1906; pp. 256,259-60; Coins of Med. Ind. by Cunningham. p. 85.
34. Dwivedi, Hariniwas; Tomron Ka Itihas,Bhag I, p. 27, and also cf. the genealogy of Tomar Dynasty from 736 A.D. to 1192 A.D.
35. Shastri, op.cit., p. 253ff.
36. Vaidya, C.V.; The Mahabharata (A Criticism), Bombay, 1929, p. 157
37. Habibullah, A.B.M.: The foundation of Muslim Rule in Ind., Allahabad 1976, p. 32. He thinks that Pirthvi Raj II or Rai (Pithora) of Delhi belonged to the Tomar dynasty.
30a. Ihid.
38. Ganga Singh, op.cit., p. 21.
39. Ibid .. pp. 27-30.
40. Ibid., p. 27.
41. Ibid.
42. Qanungo, Kalika-Ranjan; His. of the Jats, Surajmal Mem. Edn, Soc., N. Delhi, Rep. 1982. pp. 21,24,30. Dwivedi, G.C, The Jats, 1989, New Delhi.
43. Sharan, M.K.; Tribal Coins, 1972, Delhi, pp. 75,77, 135-6, 147.
44. Suri, Somadev; Yasastikachampu, 1,43-46; Hindi Tr. by Sundar Lal Shastri, 1960, Varanasi, pp. 8-9.
45. Cf. Omandanda, Swami; Yaudheyon Ka Itihas, p. 2; Anc. Seals of Ind. (Hindi), 1975, Delhi, p. 42. Sharan, op.cit., p. 75; Prasad, Ishwari, His. of Med. Ind., 1945, p. 99

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.111


46. Dasgupta, K.K.; Tribal His. of Anc. Ind., 1974, Calcutta, pp. 3, 18-19; Maharajadhiraja Bhoja, Sarasvatikanthabharana, IV, 2, 86; IV, 3, 154 (Hindi Tr. by Dr. Rameshwarnath, Chaukhamba, Varanasi); Ganaratanamahodadhi,4, 266, Vajayantibhumikhand, I, 27-28.
47. Shastri, A.M.; India as seen in the Brhatsamihta of Varahamihira, Delhi, 1969, pp. 68-69. 106-07. Dasgupta, op.cit., pp. 18ff. Chaudhuri, S.B.; Ethnic Settlements in Anc. India, Part I, 1985, Calcutta, pp. 92,95,121.
48. Chaudhuri,op.cit., pp. 92; Shastri, op.cit., pp. 68; Matsya Purana,50,56, Vishnu Pur., 4,20-44; Sharan, M.K.; Tribal Coins, 69-71; Prakash, Buddha; Pol. and Soc. Movements in Anc. Pb., 1964, Delhi, pp. 93,103.
49. Chaudhari, op.cit., pp. 92, 95; Shastri, op.cit., pp. 68-9,106-7; Dasgupta, op.cit., pp. 18ff; Prakash, op.cit., pp. 115.
50. Shastri, Yogendarpal; op.cit., pp. 353f.
51. Dasgupta, op.cit., pp. 3,18.
52. Shastri, Yogendarpal; op.cit., pp. 353f.
53. Phogat, Silak Ram; "The Original Home of Tomars, A New Interpretation", in Jour. of Haryana Studies, Vol. XVI, Nos. 1 and 2. 1954, Kurukshetra University, pp. 16-19; JASB, Vol. VIII, Part 2, pp. 693-70l.
54. [Dwivedi, Hariniwas; op.cit., pp. 164f.
55. Ibid., p. 165.
56. Monier-Williams, Skt. Eng. Dic., p. 1071.
57. U.N. Sharma, op.cit., pp. 63-4. to Deshraj the real name of Sinsini was Suraseni . ..
58. Shastri, Yogenderpal, op.cit., pp. 136.
59. Pargiter, op.cit., pp. 107.
60. Ibid.
60. U.N. Sharma, op.cit., pp. 64 fn. 121; p. 66, fn. 128.
62. Thapar, Romila; 'Genealogy As a Source of Social History" in the Indian Historical Review, Ind. Council of Historical Research, Jan. 1976, Vol.II, No. 2 pp. 270-80.
63. Ibid., pp. 271-3, 279.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid., p. 279.
66. Ibid., p. 280.
67. Singh, K. Natwar; Maharaja Surajmal, Hindi Tr. by Veerji, 1955, Radha Krishnan Prakashan, 2/38 Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi, 110002, App. 2, pp.145-146.

The Jats:Their Origin, Antiquity and Migrations: End of p.112

Back to Index of the Book
Retrieved from "http://www.jatland.com/w/index.php?title=The_Jats:Their_Origin,_Antiquity_and_Migrations/The_origin_of_the_Jat_Sansanwal_dynasry_of_Bharatpur&oldid=350535"