Origin of the Gurjara-Pratiharas

Gurjara: Tribe vs country

The term "Gurjara-Pratihara" in the Rajor inscription of Mathanadeva has been variously interpreted as "Pratihara clan of the Gurjara tribe" and "Pratihara of the Gurjara country". It contains a phrase: "all the fields cultivated by the Gurjaras". Scholars such as Rama Shankar Tripathi believe that this phrase makes it clear that the term "Gurjaras" here refers to a tribe or a group of people, rather than a region. Tripathi further argues that in Pampa's description of Mahipala as a Gurjara king can only refer to Mahipala's ethnicity, and not territory, since the Pratiharas ruled a much larger area of which Gurjara country was only a small part. Burjor Avari, a historian of South Asia, believes that the Gurjara and Pratihara were two clans among a larger tribal grouping in Rajasthan and that some elements of that larger federation later became known as Rajputs.

Critics of this theory, such as D. C. Ganguly, argue that the term "Gurjara" is used as a demonym in the phrase "cultivated by the Gurjaras". In his support, Ganguly cited a verse from Bana's Kadambari, which uses the term "Malavi" ("women of Malva") to describe the women of Ujjain, which was located in the Malva region. K. M. Munshi similarly argued that the people residing in the Gurjaradesa (Gurjara country), whenever they migrated to other parts of the country, were known as Gurjaras. V. B. Mishra similarly argues that the expression Gurjara Pratihārānvayah may very reasonably be taken to mean the Pratihara family of the Gurjara country.

Ganguly further points out that several ancient sources clearly mention "Gurjara" as the name of a country or list it among territories. These sources, according to him, include the Aihole inscription of Pulakeshin II, the Ragholi plates, and the Al Baladhuri's chronicle of Al Junayd's expeditions (723-726 CE). Several other ancient sources mention Gurjara as the name of a country. The Gurjara country is mentioned in Bana's Harshacharita (7th century CE). It is described in detail as a beautiful country in Udyotana Suri's Kuvalayamala (8th century CE, composed in Jalore), whose residents are also referred to as Gurjaras. Xuanzang also names Gurjara (Ku-che-lo) as a country with its capital at Bhinmal (Pi-lo-mo-lo). The fourth book of Panchatantra contains the story of a rathakāra (charioteer) who went to a Gurjara village in the Gurjara country in search of camels.

A 795 CE inscription of Gallaka states that Nagabhata I, the founder of the Imperial Pratihara dynasty, conquered the "invincible Gurjaras". According to historian Shanta Rani Sharma, this makes it unlikely that the Pratiharas were themselves Gurjaras.

Foreign vs native

Among the scholars who believe that "Gurjara" was the name of an ancient tribe, there is disagreement over the original homeland of this tribe.

Foreign origin theory

A. M. T. Jackson first proposed a foreign origin of the Gurjaras. This view was later endorsed by other historians, including Indian scholars such as D. R. Bhandarkar. Proponents of this theory point out that:

• The Gurjara-Pratiharas suddenly emerged as a political power in north India around 6th century CE, shortly after the Huna invasion of that region. They are not mentioned in earlier Indian literature. The Gujara-Pratihara were "likely" formed from a fusion of the Alchon Huns ("White Huns") and native Indian element. In Bana's Harshacharita (7th century CE), the Gurjaras are associated with the Hunas.
• The word Gurjar has an ending similar to the word "Khazar" (the name of an ancient Turkic group of Central Asia and Caucasus). The ancient Gurjaras might have been Khazars who invaded India as part of a Huna confederacy. Jackson argued that the ancient records do not mention them while describing the Hunas, because they might have been a subordinate to the Hunas. A related hypothesis is that the Gurjaras were a distinct Central Asian tribe who arrived in India soon after the Huna invasion, following the decline of the Gupta Empire.
• Bana names Hunas and Gurjaras together in a verse, among rivals subjugated by the king Prabhakaravardhana.

Another argument in favour of the foreign origin theory is the prevalence of seemingly non-Indo-Aryan names among the Pratiharas of Mandavyapura. This is the earliest known Pratihara dynasty, and according to some scholars such as R. C. Majumdar, the Gurajara-Pratiharas may have branched from this dynasty. Its earliest known member Harichandra was also known as "Rohilladhi"; another ruler Narabhatta had a second name "Pellapelli".

According to the Agnivansha legend given in the later manuscripts of Prithviraj Raso, the Pratiharas and three other Rajput dynasties originated from a sacrificial fire-pit (agnikunda) at Mount Abu. Some colonial-era historians interpreted this myth to suggest a foreign origin for these dynasties. According to this theory, the foreigners were admitted in the Hindu caste system after performing a fire ritual. However, this legend is not found in the earliest available copies of Prithviraj Raso. The legend was probably invented by the 10th century Paramara court-poet Padmagupta, whose Nava-sahasanka-charita uses it to describe the origin of the Paramaras. The 16th century Rajput bards probably extended this legend to include other dynasties including the Pratiharas, to foster Rajput unity against the Mughal emperor Akbar.

Indigenous origin theory

Critics of the foreign origin theory, such as Baij Nath Puri, argue that:

• The word "Gujjar" or "Gurjar" is a modern derivative of "Gurjara" (resulting from schwa-deletion). The ancient Sanskrit term was "Gurjara", which does not have same ending as "Khazar". Since -jara and -zar cannot be considered as similar endings, the Khazar origin theory is invalid.
• The rise of Gurjaras after Huna invasion does not itself suggest a foreign origin for the Gurjaras. The Mahabharata mentions the Hunas (in Bhishma Parva) as well as several other foreign tribes, but does not mention the Gurjaras or the Khazars. At the same time, the absence of Gurjaras in earlier literature does not prove their foreign origin. They might have been an obscure group, who came to power only after the fall of the Gupta empire.
• It seems unlikely that a tribe occupying a position subordinate to the Hunas (as suggested by Jackson) could establish several important kingdoms. For example, Xuanzang's writings suggest that Kiu-che-lo (Gurjara) was a sovereign kingdom ruled by a Kshatriya. It does not name any Huna overlord of this kingdom.
• The 899 CE (956 VS) Una inscription states that the Gurjara-Pratihara feudatory Balavarman had "freed the earth from the Huna race" through his battle victories. This again suggests that the Gurjaras were not considered subordinate to the Hunas.
• Bana makes a clear distinction between the Hunas and the Gurjaras, and describes several other kingdoms in the same sentence (such as Malava and Lata). His writings do not prove that these two groups were related in any way.
• The theory about the Gurjaras being an independent Central Asian tribe is pure conjecture, as there is no historical evidence of their clash with any Indian power. Moreover, they would have invaded India through the north-west: it is inexplicable why would they choose to settle in the semi-arid area of present-day Rajasthan, rather than the fertile Indo-Gangetic Plain.

The supporters of the native origin theory argue that the Gurjaras were well-assimilated in the Indo-Aryan society, unlike the well-known foreign tribes. For example, historical records mention Gurjara Brahmins; such a high varna status was not accorded to foreigners. There is no record of a Brahmin from Huna, Shaka or Yavana groups. But the 1250 CE Tasgaon inscription of the Yadava king Krishna mentions a Gurjara Brahmin from north India. The Pratiharas worshipped the native gods Shiva and Vishnu, and also patronized Jainism. For example, the Sagar-Tal (Gwalior) inscription of Mihira Bhoja begins with a salutation to Vishnu.

Moreover, the Pratihara dynasties of Mandor and Kannauj traced their origin to the legendary native hero Lakshmana of the Ikshvaku dynasty. The Gwalior inscription specifically describes the Pratihara king Vatsaraja as a Kshatriya from the Ikshvaku dynasty. The Pratihara court-poet Mahendrapala also supports this claim by describing him as a descendant of Raghu in Viddhasala-Bhanjika and Bala-bharata. The proponents of the foreign origin theory argue that such claims are a characteristic of foreign settlers wanting to establish themselves as the natives. But there are several instances of indigenous dynasties claiming descent from mythological Indian heroes.

Scholars who identify "Kucharakudihai" mentioned in the Manimekalai as "Gurjara" argue that it is unlikely that a Huna architect was tasked with the construction of a Hindu temple in southern India in 6th century. However, as stated earlier, the accuracy of this transliteration is doubtful.

Original homeland in India

R. C. Majumdar theorized that the place names such as Gujranwala, Gujar Khan, Gujaratra (a historical region in present-day Rajasthan) and Gujarat may indicate a gradual migration of a tribe named Gurjara from the north-west to the south. However, he did not believe that this tribe was necessarily of a foreign origin.

Historian Baij Nath Puri, on the other hand, theorized a migration in the opposite direction. According to him, the tribe would have not left the fertile Indo-Gangetic Plain to settle in the semi-arid areas of Rajasthan and Gujarat. Puri believes that their homeland was the Arbuda region (present-day Mount Abu). He presents following arguments in support of hist theory:

• The 625 CE (682 VS) Vasantagarh inscription of a king named Varmalata states that his feudatory Vajrabhata Satayashraya protected Arbuda. The inscription names Rajjila as the son of Vajrabhata; the son of the earliest known Pratihara ruler Harichandra was also called Rajjila. Based on this Puri theorizes that the two families shared a common ethnicity. The Vasantgarh inscription also mentions a Pratihara named Bhotaka as one of the contributors to a temple. Puri reads the name as "Bhota" and pointed out there was a man named "Jhota" in Harichandra's family. He cites this point to further his theory, arguing that the similar-sounding names indicate same ethnicity. However, J N Asopa points out that "Bhotaka" is not same as "Bhota", and the name Rajjila could have been shared by two families of different lineages.
• The 11th century Jainad inscription of the Paramara prince Jagaddeva states that the wives of the Gurjara warriors shedded tears in the caves of Arbuda as a result of his military victories.
• The Tilaka-Manjari of the 11th century Jain scholar Dhanapala also associates Gurjaras with Arbuda.

Based on this, Puri proposes that Gurjaras were an obscure pastoral tribe living around Mount Abu area until sixth century, when they gained political power.

The term "Gurjaratra", from which the word "Gujarat" is derived, appears as the name of a geographical region starting from 8th century. It appears in the 918 VS Ghatiyala inscription of Kakkuka. The undated Daulatpur grant of Bhoja of Mahodaya, placed in 8th century by L. F. Kielhorn, also mentions a person from Gurjaratra-Mandala. The locations mentioned in these inscriptions have been identified with areas around present-day Jodhpur. Puri theorizes that "Gurjaratra" was originally used as a generic term for any Gurjara-dominated settlement. Later, it came to denote the present-day Gujarat area. Jinadatta-Suri in his Ganadharasarasataka describes "Gujaratta" as the Chaulukya kingdom of Durlabharaja, with its capital at Anahilavada.

Puri goes on to connect the modern Gurjars with the ancient Gurjaras.

Capital before Kannauj

The Gurjara-Pratiharas established their control over the important city of Kanyakubja (modern Kannauj), and are noted for their involvement in the Tripartite Struggle for its control. Earlier colonial scholars believed that before establishing their control over Kannauj, the Gurjara-Pratiharas ruled Bhinmal (as mentioned in the writings of Xuanzang).

However, the discovery of the 871 CE Sanjan copper-plates and other evidence has now led historians to believe that the original Gurjara-Pratihara capital was at Ujjayini (modern Ujjain) in Avanti region. The Sanjan inscription of the Rashtrakuta ruler Amoghavarsha states that his ancestor Dantidurga (r. 735–756 CE) performed a religious ceremony at Ujjayani. At that time, the king of Gurjara-desha (Gurjara country) acted as his door-keeper (pratihara). The usage of the word pratihara seems to be a word play, suggesting that the Rashtrakuta king subdued the Gurjara-Pratihara king who was ruling Avanti at that time. In addition, the Jain Harivaṃśa names one Vatsaraja as the ruler of Avanti as a contemporary of Indrayudha of Kannauj. Historians have identified this king as the Gurjara-Pratihara ruler Vatsaraja (r. 780–800).