Scandinavia and Spain. The Chavans of India are the Chavannes of France. The Gauls, the old name of the French, is the same as the Gallān of India, the suffix an, having been added to the clan name under Pāṇini's rule. The Rose of India are the same as Rose of England, and the German Hans/Hanz are the same as Hans Jats. Similarly, the Mor of India are the same as the More/Moor of Europe. Our purpose is not to write their history but to identify these people. "It is now generally agreed that the old clan-name Moriya offers a very satisfactory explanation of Maurya, the name of the dynasty founded by Chandragupta, than the supposed derivation from the mother named Murā or father named Maurya." (The age of Imperial unity, p.56). The Purāṇas do not even hint at the peacock theories or the mother (Murā) theory. "They simply mention that the Nandas were uprooted by the Brāhmaṇa Kautilya who anointed Chandragupta as king. It was left to a commentator on the Vishṇu Purāṇa, first to suggest that Chandragupta was base-born, by way of explaining the title Maurya. He sought to derive it from Murā, supposed to be a wife of king Nanda and mother of Chandragupta. But the commentator is guilty of both fictitious history and bad grammar. The derivation from Murā is Maureya. Maurya can only be derived from the masculine Mura which is the name of a gotra in the Gaṇapātha of Pāṇini. The commentator is more anxious to find a mother for Chandragupta than to follow grammatical rules." (ibid., p.55).
6. D.B.Spooner, who excavated the site of Pataliputra, was struck by his findings and he has given his opinion about the findings in his article, `The Zoroastrian period of Indian history', (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, JRAS, 1915, pp.72ff. and 405ff.). Some of his findings might be discussed here.
"For Chandragupta's time, the evidences are more numerous and more detailed, and indicate a following of Persian customs all along the line - in public works, in ceremonial, in penal institutions, everything."
Spooner rightly rejects any Greek influence on the Mauryan art and city palaces. According to him, "the evidence point to Persia only," and clearly shows that there was "upon the threshold of a historical period, a dynasty of almost pure Persian type." (ibid., pp.72-73). He mentioned that the city of Merv (Enc.Brit. 11th ed, vol. XVIII, p.175; op.cit., p.409) was also called Maur. He has quoted K.P.Jayaswal who called attention to the fact that the name Mourva appears in the Avesta. He further
p.127
mentions that the Mauryan weights and measures agreed, not with the system of Manu, but with the Persian system (ibid., p.411; JA 1912, pp.117-132). The Mauryan coins bear the symbols of the sun, a branch, a humped bull with taurine and a chaitya type mountain. All these he considers to be Persian symbols. But these are, in fact, Magian symbols. The so-called chaitya symbol is, in fact, a high mount symbolising the earth and the irregular carving line along this symbol symbolises water. These two symbols of earth and water, along with the sun, are pre-eminently symbols of the Scythian Jatae. We must remember, in this context, the attempts of Darius to invade the Scythians on the Black Sea. There too, the Scythian king swears by the Sun-god, and refuses to surrender "earth and water". These earth and water, (dharti pānī of the present Indian Jats) thus come down from ancient times. We must also remember that Tomyrus also swears by the Sun god to give Cyrus the Great his fill of blood. The tree branch is the symbol of the traditional occupation of these people. All these symbols on the Mauryan coins are, therefore, the old Scythian/Magian symbols. They were Magians by religion and, of course, the customs of the Magians had many things in common with the ancient Persians. But they were quite distinct. That is why, during the time of Darius, the war of independance was fought for the protection of Magian religion from the Zoroastrian religion.
The Magis are very ancient priests, already mentioned in the Yasna (65.7); it is the `Old Irish Mug', the `Gothic Magus,' meaning a `helper', the one who labours to heal and to repel evil - the most appropriate function of the priesthood (JRAS, 1915, p.791). Anyway, we know that Gaumātā, `The Magian', destroyed the religious sanctuaries (Ayadana) of the Persians and these were later restored by Darius. Now, if the Magians were Zoroastrian at that time, there was no sense in destroying one's own religious places. That also shows that Magian religion was different from Zoroastrianism, although, later on, the former Magis became the propagators of Zoroastrianism. We must note that the Parsi traditions aver that Zarathustra first preached his new doctrine to his Turanian friends (Bulsara, Journal of the K.R.Cama Oriental Institute, 35, 1942, pp.84-85). King Gustasp, the first royal convert, was ruling at Balkh, not at Susa. The Ari Zantoi, the royal governing class of Persia of that period, are already named as Jats (Zantoi -> Zatoi -> Gatae).
The whole concept of Sun worship in India is connected with these Magian priests of the Central Asian Jats,. They are called the
p.128
`Brāhmaṇas of Śakadvīpa'. The Bhavishya Purāṇa is full of details about their customs. It is significant that, for a considerable period of time, the Indians accepted only the first three among the Vedas and the fourth Veda was not considered a Veda at all. It was only when these Magian priests wre accepted as Brāhmaṇas, that the Atharva Veda was accepted as a full-fledged Veda, thus making the quartet (Spooner, op cit, pp.423ff). There is evidence to indicate that Chāṇakya himself was a Magi Brāhmaṇa. That is why he gives more importance to Ānvikshiki than to the Vedas. That is, again, why he makes the Ātharvaṇa minister as a supreme guide for the king. Even the full name of this Veda is Atharvāngirasaḥ.. We know that Aṇgirasas are definitely sun-worshippers along with the Bhṛgus. This fourth Veda is, in fact, more Persian than India, in the traditional sense. According to Vishṇu Purāṇa, Śamba, son of Krishna, brought eighteen families of Maga priests from Śaka Dvīpa to India to officiate as priests in the Sun temple. Here, it must be noted that these priests were brought not from Persia proper but from Śaka Dvīpa, the land of the Scythians. It is another matter that, in subsequent periods of history, this land also came under the Persian empire. But that does not make it Persian or Zoroastrian in religion. It was Magian, plain and simple.
About Spooner's idea regarding Lord Buddha, we are not sure but we agree with him when he says that Persepolis was the "ancestral home", of the Mauryas (p.409). They were from the ruling families, viz. the Zantoi of the Manda empire.
Here the question arises as to why this fact of foreign origin of the Mauryas was not stated by Megasthenes and Chāṇakya. The answer is simple. Chāṇakya himself belonged to immigrants. So far as Megasthenes was concerned, he was a Greek and in his time the population of Persia did not differ from the ruling clans in India; moreover, by his time, they had "become so completely domiciled and so identified with the (Indian) community that they were not looked upon as aliens in our modern sense. They must have been there several centuries at least." (p.430). It must also be remembered that the Mauryas and other Jat clans were descendants of the Maṇda empire and had to flee Ecbatana. Therefore, when they founded the empire in India, they were copying their original city of Ecbatana, which was founded by them under Devaka (Deoices of the Greeks) in 7th century BC. They were ruling in the heart of Persia and the ancestors of Cyrus and Darius were vassals under them. There is no wonder, therefore,
p.129
that they were found to be practically Persian by many scholars. The Mauryas have been aptly described as `a hot house' in India and after their transplantation from Ecbatana in the Indian `hot house', the Jats were grafted upon the Indian cultural mushroom. They, thus, became part of the mainstream.
7. In this context, the history of Persia and its neighbouring areas becomes clearer. It explains the motive for Cyrus to wage war (which cost his life) against the Dahis or Massa Gatae on the Caspain Sea. It also explains the motive for Darius to attack the Vṛka, Kang and other Jat clans on the eastern side of his empire, as well as his attack, with vast preparations, on the Scythian Gatae on the Black Sea. In particular, it explains the expedition into India which Darius ordered under the admiralty of Skylax. These Persian emperors had obtained the empire of Ecbatana but they were not safe as long as the Jats, from the Indus to the Black Sea, remained unsubdued. He must have known that many Jats had fled towards Panjab. Darius must have felt the utmost necessity of exploring the rivers, valleys and plains of Sindh in order to find out everything about the new home of his adversaries. It was for this purpose that Skylax was sent in about 515 BC. It is well known that Skylax made a report to Darius about everything that he found and, after that, Darius must have attacked his former enemies in the Panjab on the Indus. That is why parts of India, at least West of the Indus river, were merged in the Persian empire. This expedition was not sent for any scientific purpose - its purpose was purely political and military. It was an advance preparation for Darius' attack on India. Does it also explain the fact that the Persians did not advance further into India, because their enemies were centered only along the Indus?
8. A number of other questions have to be answered in this connection. For example, why is that the republican states were formed only in the central and north-western portions of the Indus where the Jats are found even today. Whey did not this republican spirit express itself in eastern and southern India. We have also to explain as to why the Sapta Sindhu area, the pride of the Vedic Aryans, suddenly became the object of strictest condemnation (cf. V.S.Agrawala, India as known to Pāṇini, p.62; Buddha Prakash, Political and social movements, p.229; Vidyalankar, Bhāratīya Itihās, pp.414-415 etc.). We have also to answer why India became casteless, without any distinction of high and low. The answer to
p.130
these and various other connected questions is the fact of the arrival of the Jats in North-western India in the 6/7th century BC and also later.
9. The condemnation of the Mauryas by most of the Brahmanical writers is well known and has already been indicated. This is in direct contradiction to the treatment given by the Buddhists and Jains to their history.Mudrārākshasa called Chandragupta Maurya as Vṛshala, which is a derogatory term. It seems that this term was first started by Patañjali in the 2nd century BC. Chaturavargachintāmani of Hemādri (pt.III, sn.2, p.771) also mentions that the vṛshalas were irreligious. In the Mahābhāṣya, Patañjali gave the call for subjugating the vṛshalas, (jeyo vṛshalah, 1.1.50). He knew that the Vṛshala, Mauryas were very powerful, and so they had to be conquered somehow. Pandit Bhagavad Datta, in his Bhāratvarsha ki Bṛhat Itihās (BKBI) (vol.II, p.265), notes that this call of Patañjali requires serious consideration. He has stopped short here without giving it further consideration but we have to find out the reason. This call was given because the Mauryas were foreigners ruling over India. In particular, they did not follow the social, religious and political ideas of traditional Hinduism. Hence, the call was given and it is only a representative of similar ideas in many an Indian mind at that time. This is further connected with subsequent history because we know that the Brāhmaṇa general of the Mauryan army, Puṣyamitra Śuṇga, killed the Mauryan emperor Bṛhadratha under the pretext of showing him an army parade. Obviously, he was given shape to the call given by Patañjali. Had not the Yuga-Purana given a similar call by declaring that the Mauryas who called themselves `virtuous'; but were really devoid of virtue, subjected `our country' to terrible oppression ? (ed. D.R.Mankad, p.32, quoted SIHC, p.198). The cat is out of the bag because the Mauryas were clearly accused of oppressing `our country', obviously because, they did not belong to `our country', ie. India.
10. Our remarks about the war of succession to the throne of Ecbatana are supported by the following evidences:-
(i) Cambyses, son of Cyrus, hears about the capture of the throne by Gaumātā and he is not able to enter Ecbatana, the capital. On his death-bed in Syria, he exhorts the fellow Persians, in these words thus: "In the name of gods I charge you all that ye do not tamely allow the kingdom to go back to the Maṇdas. Recover it, one way or another, by force or fraud." (Herodotus, Book.III, ch.65).
p.131
(ii) "After the voyage (of Scylax) was completed, Darius conquered the Indians, and mae use of the sea in those parts." (Rawlinson on Herodotus, vol.III, p.31). This shows that the expedition of Skylax was in fact a preparation for the attack on the Jats in India.
(iii) We know that after the death of Cambyses (Kambujia), and before Darius could succeed to the throne, there were as many as nineteen revolts in the different parts of the empire. The main centres of revolt were Armenia, Media, Arachosia, Sagartia, Parthia, and Hyrcania. Fravartish, the Maṇda, revolted on the claim that "I am kshatriya, of the race of Huakshatra." "The Maṇda troops who were at home revolted from me. They went over to that Fravartish. He became king of Media. Chitratakhua raised the banner of revolt on the same ground, ie. that he was of the race of Huakshatra. Parthia and Hyrcania (the land of the Vrkas) revolted against Darius and declared their support for Fravartish. Yahyazdata revolted in Yutia district and became the ruler of Persia proper. He sent an army to Harchosia. The Armenian fought at least five battles and Fravartish fought at least three battles. It is significant that most of these rebels were supporters of the dynasty of Huakshatra of the Maṇda, and Cyaxeres of the Greeks. Yahyazdata wanted to cut off Darius from the eastern region of the empire and wanted to come into contact with the areas held by Fravartish. These details, which are taken from the Behistun inscription of Darius, make the point clear. These were the wars for the throne of Ecbatana and were fought under various leaders who were supporters of the Maṇda clan. Ultimately, however, they failed and Darius was victorious.
11. We may mention that there is evidence to show that the Mauryas were from the ancient Maṇda empire. Much earlier, we find them named as Muru or Mor by the Egyptians and the scriptures. There, these Mores were called Amuru and Amor or Amorites. CAH mentions that the initial vowel, `a', is added to make pronunciation easier for the Semites, (vol.III, p.194). Thus, the initial vowel `a' has to be ignored in order to find the correct name of these people and this clearly remains as Mur/Mor. This is the same as the Moor of Europe and the Mor clan of the Jats in India. When they attacked the king of the 11th dynasty of Egypt, they are expressly mentioned as the people from "the land of Djati." We have shown that this land of Djati is the same as the land of the Guti and clearly means the land of the Jats. Thus the
p.132
Mor/Mur are expressly mentioned as the Jats in the 21st century BC. Naturally, when these people and their brothers from other areas in Central Asia came to India and established the Maurian empire, they did not feel at home and have been called a hot house in India as mentioned above. Thus, we can conclude that Mor/Mur/Maurya were the same people who were attacking Egypt in the 21st century BC and were called Jats by the Egyptians and others. It were these people who founded the Mauryan empire and whose descendants form the clan of Mor among the Jats of today.
12. The identification of the Mauryas with Central Asia and in particular with the city of Maur or Mourav (present Merv) is further strengthened by Indian literature. In the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas these people and their country are called Mura or Muru. These are practically the same forms of the name which appear in the Assyrian records as Mor or Muru. In Indian literature they are called Asura who were a branch of the Aryans, for, as the Śatapatha Brahmaṇa mentions, the Devas and Asuras were both born from Prajāpati:
... [Devanagari line, S.B.1.2.4.8; 4.2.4.11] ...
It is stated that Mura was an Asura son of Kāśyapa Prajāpati (Vāmana Purāṇa, ch.60). He was the guardian of Prāgjyotisha. the capital city of Narakāsura. He had fenced the boundary of the capital city with 6000 ropes, known in the Purāṇas as Mauravapāśa (Mahābhārata, Sabhāparva, Dākṣiṇātya-pāṭha, ch.38). He goes to Mahāmeru identified with the Pamir Mountains, and challenged the Yakṣas and Gandharvas to fight but they did not accept his challenge. Thereafter Mura goes to Indra in his capital of Amarāvatī and challenged him to fight with these words, "Fight me or leave this place". Indra did not fight and left Amarāvati and Mura ruled there for a long time. Ultimately, Mura was killed by Kṛshṇa along with his overlord Narakāsura (Bhāgavata Purāṇa, Skandha 10). This attack on Amarāvatī, the capital of Indira, by Mura finds support from Skanda Purāṇa also, where it is mentioned that two warriors called Ugra and Mayūra, attacked the capital of Indra (Vīra-Māhendra Khaṇda). Here, as in the other Purāṇas, the name of Mura is Sanskritised into Mayūra, the reasons for which have already been discussed earlier. The second name Ugra is, again, a tribal name, being the Ugrians of Greek writers, and the present Uighur of Soviet Central Asia. The name of the ropes of Mura called Maurava ropes is, again the same as the name of the city and the clan, Mourav, as per Persian records
p.133
Thus, the Mura and Naraka are identical with the Mura and Nairi of Assyrian records and the present Mor and Nārā clan of the Jats. This area was definitely in the west of India, rather in the North-west, and Prāgjyotisa was his capital city. At the time of the Mahābhārata, it was ruled over by Bhagadutta who is called `a king of Yavanas'. and also `a king of Asuras'. He was a friend of Pāṇdu (Sabhāparva.14.14). He attended the Rājasūya sacrifice of Yudhiṣṭhira (Sabhāparva.51.14). Arjuna, defeats him in the North (Sabhāparva.26.7) and, in the war, he is killed by Arjuna (Droṇāparva.29.48). Vajradatta, son of Bhagadatta, was also killed by Arjuna (Aśvamedha-parva, ch.76). In Sabhā-parva (13.13), Mura and Naraki are both stated to be rulers in the Wesṭ
The above discussion would clearly establish that the country of Mura was in the North-west of India, and the present city of Merv can very well be identified with their ancient capital. As already mentioned, in Iranian literature, this city is called Mourav or Maur.
13. In the later period we find the Maur clan ruling in the Rajasthan area. The Mor/Maur kings of Chittore are named Maheśvara, Bhima, Bhoja and Māna. In the 8th century AD, they were ruling at Kota also, where a ruler named Dhaval Maur is mentioned in an inscription of 738 AD (JA 19 (1890) 55-57). H.G.Ray suggests that the Mor/Mori kings of Chittore belonged to the Paramāra branch of the Rajputs (Dynastic history of North India, I, pp.5-6, Note). This is not correct because Paramāra and Mor are two separate clans and neither is a part of the other. This suggestion is like the same that the Nehrus are a part of the Gandhis. It may also be noted that in the Glossary of the Tribes and Castes, the Mors are not mentioned as a Rajput clan, but as a purely Jat clan.
|
