Dehiya on the Jat Iranic Identity of the Mauryas
In 1979 the famous Jat historian B.S.Dehiya published a paper entitled “The Mauryas: Their Identity”, Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. 17 (1979), p.112-133. In this now classic treatise, B.S.Dehiya proved several points, including the following:
- The Mauryas, Muras, or rather Mors, were Jats, and hence Scythian or East Iranic in origin.
- Consequently, Ashoka, Chandragupta and all other emperors of the Mauryan Dynasty were Scythian Jats (p.116).
- The Atharva Veda was the creation of Iranic sun-priests or Magas, and was not part of the original Vedic tradition (p.128).
- The primordial Jat religion was that of the original Iranic race, namely monotheist Sun-worship, which they and their Maga priests carried wherever they migrated (p.119, 128).
- Chanakya or Kautilya, brain behind the Mauryan Empire and author of the famous Artha-Sastra, was an Iranic sun-priest or Maga (p.128).
- The Mauryas or Mors were close kin of the Amorites of Babylonia and Egypt. (p.131)
- The Jat immigrants are close kin of the ancient Gutians of Sumeria (p.131), and the Goths or Gots (p.125), known in Latin as Getae.
A large part of the essay is devoted to showing that the name Maurya or Mor was, and indeed still is, a Jat clan title, and has nothing to do with peacocks, nor was it the name of a Sudra woman, as Brahmanical authors had fraudulently claimed (p.113). A section is devoted to the hatred of Jats and Sakas displayed in the Brahmanic literature in general. Dehiya also mentions how the splendid Buddhist university of Nagarjunakonda was destroyed by the crazed followers of the fanatical Sankaracharya (p.118), and describes how the Vedic Brahmin general Pushyamitra destroyed the glorious Mauryan empire by treacherously murdering the last Mauryan king (p.130).
Consequently, the paper is a real treat for historians. As the work is not easily available for Iranologists and Scythologists I am attaching extracts from the paper for reference and academic purposes only.
Vice-Chancellor of Kurukshetra University
“The Mauryas: Their Identity”
by B.S. Dehiya
(Asst. Commissioner, Income Tax, Jullundur), Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. XVII (1979), p.112-133; Vishveshvaranand Vishva Bandhu Institute of Sanskrit and Indological Studies, Panjab University, Hoshiarpur.
Whatever is known about Porus, the brilliant adversary of Alexander the great, has come down to us from the Greek writers whose main source of information is the account of the conquests of Alexander given by those who accompanied his expedition. To that extent, barring the pardonable partiality for their national hero, their accounts may be taken at their face value, after cross-checking. Indian writers and works not only fail to mention Porus, but have completely ignored Alexander himself. Even Chāṇakya, who must have witnessed the high stakes drama in the Panjab – nay, he was an actor in it – though writing about almost everything under the sun, has not said a word about Porus or the origins of the Mauryas to whom he is supposed to have given the Indian empire on a platter. The Purāṇas, apart from mentioning the periods of different rulers of the Mauryan dynasty, give no other information about Porus, his war with Alexander, the origins of the Mauryas, etc. They are contemptuously dismissed as śūdras or vṛshalas or kulahīnas, by the dramatists, Viśākhadatta, of Mudrārākshasa fame, and as `utterly irreligious’; by the Yuga Purāṇa. The Vishṇu Purāṇa says that “upon the cessation of the race of Nanda, the Mauryas will possess the earth.” Commenting on the lack of any mention of “the greatest (religious revolution) which the world has ever seen” during the reign of Aśoka, R.C.Dutt says, “to the Brahmanical narrator, the deeds of the scheming Chāṇakya … are more worthy of mention than those of the imperial Aśoka who spread the name and religion of India from Antioch and Macedon to Cape Comorin and Ceylon.” (A history of civilization in Ancient India, vol. II, 1972, pp.36-37).
The Jain traditions do not mention Porus and Alexander, and about the Mauryas, they say that they were peacock tamers! This connection with peacocks (mor in Hindi) is quite widespread. Even the Buddhist records say that when the Mauryas, a branch of the Śākyas, were driven out of Magadha, they went to a hilly region
p.113
where there were many peacocks. They built a city there and, because the colour of the bricks used in the city palaces was that of the neck of a peacock, they were known as Moriyas and their city was called Moriya-nagar. Peacocks were found engraved on the Nandangarh pillar, the Sanchi stupas etc. Peacocks were also known to have been kept in the parks of the Maurya palace at Pāṭaliputra. Therefore, Foucher, John Marshall and Grunwedel concluded that the peacock was the dynastic emblem of the Mauryas! Even in the Great Epic Mahābhārata, when it was revised during the Gupta period, their name was Sanskritised into Mayūraka, meaning `peacock tribe’.
All these peacock theories are mere fairy tales, without any grain of truth in them. The Mauryas had no connection whatsoever with the peacock; nor was it their dynastic or favourite symbol or bird. Pillar Edict V of Aśoka gives a list of protected animals and birds which were not to be killed, but the peacock is not one of them. So, the Mauryas were “peacock eaters, rather than peacock tamers” (Buddha Prakash, Studies in Indian History and Civilization, SIHC, p.73). Otherwise also, how is the son of a `peacock tamer’ found getting education in Taxila, the greatest seat of learning for princes, situated a thousand miles away from Pāṭaliputra?
These stories came to be concocted because the clan name of these people was Mor (pronounced as English more) and, coincidentally, Mor also meant a peacock in Indian languages. But the name is not Indian at all, it is from Central Asia, and means `head’ or `crown’, which is the meaning of practically all the clan names of the Jats. It is this word which is mentioned as Moḍa, the crown worn by the bridegroom at the time of marriage even today. As r is pronounced by the Central Asian people with a slight sense of ḍ or rh (as in the word `Chandigarh’), it was also, erroneously again, thought to mean the Sanskrit moda, meaning `happiness’ or `rejoicing’.
The Brahmanical writers knew it as mor. They wanted to declare these people as śūdras and therefore invented yet another story, viz, that Chandragupta Maurya was born of a woman named Murā who was a śūdra lady and hence he was called Maurya, being the son of Murā! But they failed to bother themselves about the fact that it is impossible to derive Maurya from Murā, with a long ā. It can be derived only from Moor or Mūra. Mor, has only a soft `o’ and does not give the sound of `u’ or `oo’. It is sounded as `poll’; and not as
p.114
`pool’ in English. Therefore, the theories `associating them with the tribe of the peacock-tamers are superficial’ (SIHC, p.77). The appearance of the peacock on certain monuments of the Mauryas only reflect human admiration for the beauty of the bird. Even Alexander was so much charmed with their beauty that he threatened the severest penalties against anyone who should kill a peacock (Arrian, Indica, vol.15, p.218).
Other theories say that Mauryas were connected with the Nandas, Mura being taken to be the wife of a Nanda king, and, so the grand-mother or mother of the first Maurya. Similar is the claim of Mudrārākshasa and Bṛhat-kathā. These connections with the Nanda dynasty are manifestly absurd. Buddha designated these stories as `fallacious’. It is well known that Mauryas were a patronymic people who derived their name from their father and not from their mother. The Buddhist writers do not regard Maurya as a metronymic. They invariably represent it as the name of a clan (Age of the Nandas and Mauryas, ANM, by K.A.N.Sastri, p.141), the members of which ranked as kshatriyas since the days of the Buddha. Their kshatriya status is further testified by several medieval inscriptions (Epigraphia Indica, Vol.II, p.222). The Greek accounts, too, do not suggest a blood relationship between Chandragupta and the Nandas. The former is mentioned by Justin as born in humble life (Invasion, p.327). This also shows that Chandragupta was not born in the royal family of the Nandas and was not the scion of the royal line which he overthrew (ANM, p.141).
Now, coming to the Buddhist accounts, we have already noted that according to these version, Mauryas were a branch of the Śākyas who were forced to migrate from Magadha under the pressure of the emperor and had to go to live in Udyāna. The first Maurya married a Nāga daughter and seized the throne of Udyāna. His son, named Utalosina (Uttara-Sena) became king after him and when he was out hunting, Buddha came to his house and told his mother that her son belonged to Buddha’s family and, therefore, he should take a part of Buddha’s ashes from Kuśinagar. Uttarasena staked a claim for the ashes of Buddha on the ground that he was a kshatriya of the same clan as the Buddha himself. The kings of other countries treated him scornfully but Buddha again intervened and told the hostile kings about his wishes and so they allowed Uttarasena to get the ashes (S.Beal, Buddhist records, vol.I, p.128).
p.115
A critical analysis of the above story will make it clear that this is again a fairy tale invented afterwards, when the dynasty of Aśoka, the greatest patron of Buddhism, was sought to be connected with the clan of Buddha himself. It should be noted that it was Buddha who told the Udyāna ruler of his own clan, as if he himself was ignorant of the same. Secondly, the mythological character is again clear from the second intervention of Buddha at the time of the allocation of the ashes. How the Buddha who was dead at the time, personally came to intervene, not once but twice, is worthy of belief only [for] children. The Mauryas had no connection with the Śākyas, or even with Magadha. They were a clan of the North-West and have to be searched for in the region of Western Punjab, Gāndhāra and Kashmir. It was in these regions that Chandragupta was found in his childhood. It was here at Taxila that he got his education, it was there that he met Alexander and it was here that he under the instigation and advice of Chāṇakya, consolidated his power by driving out the Greek forces and uniting these areas under his own rule. We know for certain that Chandragupta was quite young when he met Alexander and shortly thereafter, at least within ten years of Alexander’s death, he sat on the throne of Magadha. It should be noted that Magadha was conquered later, his first conquest and consolidation of power being in the North-West India or the Uttarapatha.
Buddha Prakash had dealt with the term in its various aspects and had come to the conclusion that the Mauryas originally belonged to the Bihar region. The main support for his theory is the existence of a village named Mor near Patna. But if that is the criterion, then we have a number of villages and towns in Punjab-Haryana area having the name Mor. The Mor Mandi in Panjab is a flourishing town and Mor Kheri etc. are the names of villages in Rohtak. This is why B.K.Barua and H.C.Seth (Indian Historical Quarterly, vol.8 (1932)) place the Mauryas in the North-West. K.A.Nilakanta Sastri (The age of Nandas and Mauryas, p.143) thought that Chandragupta hailed from western India and the poor status in which he was found was due to the aggressive imperialist policy of Magadha under the Nandas. No evidence has been quoted for the latter part of the statement. However, the detestation felt by Chandragupta against the Nanda king is taken note of as evidence. But such dislike for the Nandas was not peculiar to Chandragupta. Nandas seem to have alienated the majority of the Indian population. Having the examples of the Persians and Alexander’s empire before him, Chandragupta must have intensely felt the sorry state of political affairs in North-west India in particular and
p.116
the rest of India in general. That is why he gathered around him daredevil fighters from the hilly area of Uttarapatha, thus laying the foundation of the unification of India for the first time in recorded history.
Grammatically, Maurya is a derivative from Mūra or Moor by adding the śyan suffix (Mahābhāṣya, 8.2.1). Therefore, the original word remains Mor/Moor and not Mayūra etc. The last word Mayūr or Mayūraka is a Sanskrit translation of the original clan-name Mor, which was unfortunately found to be the same as the Hindi word Mormeaning peacock. It is worth noting that the Greek writers mention the word as Moores or Mories. (Invasion, p. 108, 225 etc.). As is well known, the affix s, us, es, os etc. are generally added at the end of the personal names by the Greek writers. Dropping these affixes, there remains the word Moer or Morie. To clinch the issue, we have the Rock Edict No. 1 of Aśoka himself which mentions the word as Mora and not Maurya. Buddha Prakash seems to have evaded the issue by saying that “the meaning of the word Mora, occurring in R.E.I of Aśoka is not quite certain”. (Op. cit., p. 73, note 3.). The meaning is absolutely clear and it is the name of the dynasty to which Aśoka belonged. Curtis described the word as the title of the king of Patala, supposed to be somewhere in Sind. He must have been led to believe so because Mor must have been used as the designation of more than one king of the royal family of Patala because it was their clan name. R. K. Mukerji (Chandragupta and his time, p. 24). Nilakanta Sastri (op. cit, p. 142, note 1) and others agree that the Greek term Moer has to be identified with the Maurya. The Buddhist texts invariably mention the name as Mor or Moriya, the latter being a derivative of the former. We must note here that many Jat clan names are similarly derived. E.g.
Gul : Guliya
Katar : Katariya
Potal : Potaliya
Sahi : Sahiya
Sibi : Sibiya/Sibia
Dahi : Dahiya
Pauna : Pauniya
According to the extended Mahāvaṁśa, (Ed. by G. P. Malakasekara, vol. V, 95-101, p. 60), which says:
[ …. Devanagari line ….]
p.117
the word was known in the entire Jambūdvīpa as Mor and Aśoka was known as Mor Rājā (SIHC, p.71). Here, it should be noted that in the extract given by Buddha Prakash, the word Mor, Mayūraka, Mayūr as well as Moriya Nagar appear togetherṛ This shows that Mor is not a Prākṛt or Pāli form of Mayūra. The author of Mahāvaṁśa knew all the words mentioned above. If Mor was an Indian word and a Prākṛt form of the Sanskrit Mayūra, `peacock’, then it would not have been mentioned along with the latter. Mor is not an Indian name. It is the name of the Jat clan which still exists. We have also to note that this was the word used in this very form in Central Asia when the Mor clan of the Jats scattered in various directions. People came to India and who belonged to this clan used and pronounced the word as Mor. Their brothers who went to Europe and England, similarly used the word as Mor or More. If this was an Indian word and the Mauryans were an Indian clan, then the same clan name would not have been found in Western Europe, where its supposed original form, Mayūra, was unknown, as also the word Maurya.
We know that the Mauryas were ruling in Khotan and other Turkistan areas as well as in Kashmir. Before Bapa Rawal, the Mauryas were ruling at Chittor in Rajasthan, the name of the city being given as Jattaraur by Alberuni and as Jattaur, Jittur, Jitpur by others (Elliot and Dowson, op. cit., vol. I). This is because we know that prior to the rule of Mor Jats, the Śibia clan of the Jats was ruling at Chittor, as is proved by their numerous coins found in that area. Bapa Rawal himself was the daughter’s son of the last Mor king, Raja Mān. It is worth noting that Mahrat, king of Chittor, figuring in Chachnama, was a scion of Mor/Mori clan. He was a relation of king Sahasi of the Rai Dynasty of Sindh, whom Hiuen Tsang calls in A.D. 640, as Śūdra (Raychaudhury, Political History of Ancient India, PHAI, pp. 226-27). Mor as well as Rai are Jat clans, also figuring in Iranian history. H. C . Ray (Dynastic history of Northern India, DHNI (i) pp. 5, 6 ) takes Mori as Maurya and correctly so. But he goes further and says that Maurya/Mori were Paramāra Rajputs. Here he goes wrong, because the word Rajput in the ethnic sense is not used until 10th century A.D. (Cf., P. Saran, Studies in Medieval Indian History, p. 23). The word Jat was already hoary with antiquity, at that time. The Mor clan obviously went to the Mahārāshṭra areas as well to the south. An inscription found at Varanama in former Baroda state speaks of a minister of the Moḍa family. (No, 436, Inscriptions of Northern India). In the Soutb, coins of Mān kings, a Jat clan considered as
p.118
Śakas, have been found in the Konkan area. Nāgārjunikonda inscriptions refer a Śaka named Moda (Ep.Ind., vol.20, p.37).
This and many other pieces of evidence point to the extension of the Śakas in the South and their extensive settlements there (IHQ, 38, 1962, p.208, note 27). The Śaka warriors in traditional dress, found during excavations at that place is a further proof of this fact. Nilakanta Sastri and others referred to certain Tamil texts supporting the Maurya invasion of the South where the Maurya chariots are shown as rolling across a cutting for road made in the mountains for that purpose (ANM, pp.252ff, Journal of Indian History, JIH (1975), pp.243ff.). The Nagarjunakonda Buddhist complex, and monastery were built by the Yakṣas under the directions of Nāgārjuna himself as per Korian [Korean] traveller Hui-Chao’s account of the 8th century AD (JIH, 48 (1970) pp.415ff). It was destroyed by the followers of Śankarācārya in the 8th century, after flourishing for 700 years (ibid., p.421: R.C.Mitra, The decline of Buddhism in India, (1954), p.130, L.Joshi, Studies in Buddhist culture of India, (1967), p.396). Referring to certain ancient sculptures on the Nilgiri hills, Father Metz states that these were called Moriarie Mane `house of the Morias’ and recognises in the latter the Mauryas or Usbeck Tatars (Oppert, The original inhabitants of India, 1892, p.183, quoted in IHQ 12 (1936) 340). “Col. Congreve referred to the Scythian origin of these people and their cairns. The Chinese called them the Yue-Che; and the Vedas, the Purāṇas, the Buddhists and Jain traditions referred to them as the Yakshas.” (IHQ, 12 (1936) 341). A. Banerji Sastri takes Mura to be a non-Aryan (ie. non-Indian) root (ibid.). Przyluski explains Mauryathrough the Prākṛt form Mora (ibid.), but he too, it seems, was misled into this mistake under the impression that the word is Indian. Referring to the origin of the Mor Jats, Tribes and Castes, Vol.II (1970), says that, “Mor is so called because a peacock (Mor) protected their ancestor from a snake”. As already mentioned all these are baseless theories because the premise, viz., that Mor stands for the peacock is itself baseless. When the basic hypothesis is wrong, the conclusions are bound to be wrong!.
2. From the above discussion it is clear that Mor is not an Indian word and has no connection whatsoever with the peacock. It is a Central Asian clan name of the Jats and means the head or crown. That is why Divyāvadāna, the Ceylonese chronicle, states that Mauryas were `crown-headed’ kshatriyas (mūrdkābhishiktakshatriyāḥ), because that is exactly the meaning of the word, Mor. Evidence is attested below
p.119
to show that these people came to India when the first Jat empire of the Mandas was superceded under Cyrus the Great, and Darius. It is a well-known fact that when the last Manda Emperor Ishtuvegu was taken prisoner by Cyrus the Great, with the help of General Harpagus, many Central Asian Jats had to run to India and in other directions. Those who did not lend their loyalty to Cyrus had to flee. Those who remained loyal to Darius, were called `Euergetae’, ie. “the benefactor Jats.” Many others had to flee under his successor, Darius. Jean Przyluski calls them Bahlikas from Iran and Central Asia (Journal Asiatique, 1926, pp.11-13) and Buddha Prakash calls them “exotic and outlandish people”. (SIHC, p.35). Referring to the Maga priests, Srivastava shows that these Maga priests came to India during the 6-8th century BC (Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Bhagalpur Session, 1968, pp.86 ff). It is well-known that these Magas or Magians were priests of the Manda empire of Ecbatana.
The main tribes of the Jats who had to flee under the circumstances mentioned above were the Mandas, the Varikas, the Mores, the Sibis, the Attris, the Khattris, the Kangs, the Pors, etc. All these Jat clans are still existing in India and they are aptly termed as Bahlikas, ie people of Balkh area or the Oxus river. The empire-building habit was in their blood and they have seen how their own empire was succeeded by the Achaemenians and Alexander. On the other hand, their own various clans were scattered and were fighting each other. It is these tribes whom Pāṇini called Āyudhajīvis and it was to their federation that the name of Jat Sangha was given by Pāṇini (Jatā Jhaṭa Sanghāte). It is these people who established numerous cities in Uttarapatha, with their names ending with kaṇṭha, well-known to Pāṇini (V.S.Agrawala, India as known to Pāṇini, pp.68-69). From the same source we know of the existence of other Jat clans in Panjab at that time. For example, Maharājki, Kunḍu (Kaundaparatha), Dhānḍa (Dandaki), Dhāmā, Parsavāl (Parsavah), Syāl (Salva), Kathia or Kathwal (Kathoi of the Greeks), Mall or Malli (Malloi of the Greeks and Malavas of the Indians) etc.etc. It is these people again who established many Sun-temples in the Panjab and Uttarāpatha which were seen by the Greeks who came with Alexander. It is further well known that Sun-worship was entrusted to the priests called Maga/Magians, for they knew best how to serve it (Alberuni’s India, by Sachau, 1914, p.121). Even the name of a prince is given as Assagetes by the Greeks (ANM, p.51). Mudrārākshasa mentions the armies of Śakas, Yavanas, Bahlikas and
p.120
others who were the allies of Chandragupta Maurya, even though they were estranged against him during the conquest of Magadha. The Greek accounts mention that the Araṭṭas were on the side of Chandragupta. These Āraṭṭas, called robbers by the Greeks, were these very people who formed the vanguard of Chandragupta’s army, and they were so called because their form of Government was republican, ie. kingless. How do we explain the fact that the viceroy of Ujjain under Aśoka, was called by the Persian title Kshatrapa? (K.A.N. Sastri, History of India, Pt. I, p.112). Why was the viceroyalty of Saurastra given by Aśoka to the `Persian’ Tushaspha? (The age of Imperial unity, p.61).
Another indication of the foreign nature of these people is given by the Purāṇas and other Indian works. The Vishṇu Purāṇa calls them śūdras. The Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa(88.5), brands the Mauryas as Asuras. The Mudrārākshasa calls these people as Mlecchas and Chandragupta himself is called `kulahīna’, ie, an upstart of unknown family. In the same drama, a character Ḍingarāṭa figures in the retinue of Chandragupta and Malayaketu. This name is manifestly non-Indian (SIHC, p.140). The Yuga Purāṇa called them “utterly irreligious, though posing as religious.”
One is forced to reflect as to why so much antagonism has been expressed against the Mauryas by the narrators of the Purāṇas. The theory of patronage of Buddhism by Aśoka being the cause will not do, because Chandragupta was more inclined to Jainism and many other kings of the Maurya dynasty were Brahmanical. The reason lies in the foreign origin of these people. That is why they are called Mleccha, Asura, etc. They relate how the Nandas were uprooted as the earth passed to the Mauryas. But, even here, the credit for this achievement is given to a Brāhmaṇa Kauṭilya or Chāṇakya, even though this very Kauṭilya had a low opinion of the army of Brāhmaṇas (Artha-Śāstra, 9.2). He was also the first to devise equal punishment for equal offenses, irrespective of the status of the wrong-doeṛ This was directly against the Brahmanical law under which no Brāhmaṇa can be given capital punishment under any circumstances. It is interesting to note that even Chāṇakya, (who was so-called because he was born in village Chaṇaya in Golla District at Gandhara, SIHC, p.94), has been mentioned as belonging to Pāṭaliputra in the Bṛhatkathākośa. If Chāṇakya can be mentioned as originally from Magadha, there is no wonder that the Mauryas too were so described.
p.121
The next point to note, in this connection, is the administration, policy, ceremony at the court, and various other aspects of Mauryan polity, which clearly and unmistakably show that these were copied from the Achaemenian emperors (V.A.Smith, Early history of India, pp.128ff; `Persian influence on Mauryan India’, Indian Antiquary (IA) 35 (1905) p.201-3; Roy Chaudhury, Political History of Ancient India, 4th ed., p.245, etc.). Almost all authors on Mauryan administration, art and culture, speak of the Persian as well as Greek influence. Coomaraswami (History of Indian and Indonesian art) says correctly that, “there is comparatively little in Indian decorative art that is peculiar to India and much that India shares with Western Asia.” Excavations on Bhir mound at Taxila produced a winged stag which is similar to the Persian model (Archaeological Survey of India, ASR 1919-20, pl.XI, figure 2). The polished sandstone statues at Sarnath, wearing a crenallated crown, the method the of wearing, the waist cloth without the kaccha, as we find in the two Patna Yaksha statues in the Indian Museum, and the coiled armlet, decorated spirally, of the same statues, inevitably recall Achaemenian parallels. (IHQ, 7 (1931) 229 ff, quoted ANM, p.356).
Much more important evidence of Persian cultural influence on the Mauryan court and cultural ideology is afforded by the account of the city of royal palaces in (Pāṭaliputra) left by the Greek writers as well as the actual remains of the city and the palaces unearthed by Waddell and Spooner (ibid.): “That the magnificent palaces of Pataliputra reminded Megasthenes of the palaces of Susa and Ecbatana, is not without significance.” (ibid., p.357). Here, we must pause and remember that the city of Ecbatana was built by the Maṇda Jats as their first capital. There is no wonder that the same people followed the same models when they built their palaces of Pataliputra. We must also note that stone on a large scale was first introduced into India by the Mauryans. In pre-Mauryan India the houses were mainly built of mud and wood. The use of stones was unknown, at least on a large scale. On the other hand, in their Persian and Central Asian empire, the Jats were habituated to this media of construction. “This adoption of the Persepolitan style of building at Pāṭaliputra was not the result of the contact of the Achaemenian and Indian sculptures but was due to conscious adoption of the plan of the Achaemenian Hall of the Public Audience by the Maurian emperors …” (Chanda, quoted, ibid., p.358). This remark further proves our theory that it was not the mere imitation of the Persian art and architecture, but it was a
p.122
deliberate and conscious continuation of the style of architecture by the Mauryan Jats when they came to India from Ecbatana and other Central Asian areas. That is why, it is established, that whatever extant remains of Mauryan period are available, were “worked out by the orders of the Mauryan monarchs under their direct supervision.” (ibid.) Therefore, it is not merely the influence of Achaemenian empire or of the Greeks that was working on the Mauryan mind. They themselves were the forerunners of the Persian and Greek empires. They themselves had started the methods of administration and polity as well as architecture. That is why, “even after the extinction of Echaemenian power, importation of Achaemenian art objects to India seems to have continued.” Here, we would modify the statement slightly. The art objects were not imported from Persia, they were made in India under the direct supervision of the Jat elite who had complete familiarity with the same. It has been recognised that the Mauryan government was, to a great extent, influenced by Achaemenid and Hellenistic traditions. (Conc. history of India, pp.54-55), and that Chandragupta Maurya did more to Hellenise India than Demitrius and Menander.” Referring to the columns of the Hall of Pāṭaliputra, the same authority concludes, “This definite and distinctive schools of sculpture is, to a large though uncertain extent, un-Indian.” (ibid., p.90-91). The edict of Aśoka begin with the usual form of Devānāmpiya Piyadasi evamāha, which, according to Senart, “is an absolutely isolated example in Indian epigraphy.” (ibid., p.359). The inscriptions of Darius as well as Aśoka use the same word, Dipi or Lipi, to designate the inscriptions and the Indian form was borrowed from Persia (ibid.).
There can be no doubt that the impetus came from outside. The very sudden use of stone and that, at once, for monumental use of large designs and huge proportions, and the quick process of evolution from primitive to conscious, civilised and sophisticated form and appearance, from tribal to imperial outlook, that is evident in the total effect of the columns point unmistakably in that direction. It has been repeatedly suggested, not without reason, that this extraneous impetus and inspiration came from Iran of the Achaemenid emperors, some have suggested that the Mauryan columns are but indeed adaptations of the Achaemenian prototype. Attempts have been made to deny the extent of debt, not again without a certain amount of justice, but few have seriously doubted that West Asian art forms in general, and Achaemenian impetus and inspiration directly in particular, were at work at the root (ANM, p.367). Here, we
p.123
remember that Nineveh, the mighty Assyrian capital, had fallen under the Maṇḍa Jats in 606 BC. Ecbatana, on whose model Pātaliputra was built, was planned and built by the Jats under Deioces Maṇḍa. No wonder that they copied their original models. The manner of the loss of the empire, the long struggles to recapture the same, crowned with the temporary success under Gaumātā Maṇḍa in 529 BC, before Darius could succeed on the throne, and the forced flight to India and in other directions, must have kept memory like a burning torch, to beacon and to guide the Jats when they formed yet another empire under the Morclan. Like themselves, the Mauryan art of government, administration, welfare of the people, art and architecture, dress and manners, social and religious ideas all were immigrant to India.
Yet another significant pointer in the same direction is the attitude of the Mauryan kings towards society in general and many typically Brahmanical rituals in particular. The ancient ṛshis were ascetics and practiced self-control and avoided the five pleasures of the senses. They lived on food left at the door by the faithfuls. They possessed a noble stature and tender and bright mind and always remained engaged in their own pursuits. In course of time, however, they began to covet a king’s riches and objects of pleasure, such as women with ornaments, chariots yoked with stately horses. With an eye to these gains they approached king Ikṣvāku and persuaded him to celebrate various sacrifices, and received wealth, women and chariots, horses and cows, as fees from the king. Coveting more and more, they again persuaded him to celebrate sacrifices with the offering of cows, the slaughter of which enraged the gods. From the sacrificial shed, the priest used to order, “Kill as many bulls for the sacrifice, killas many he-calves, kill as many she-calves, so many goats, so many rams, all for the sacrifice. His servants, messengers, workers, all made the perparations either with tears in their eyes or weeping for fear of punishments.”
The above narration of the change of the ancient rishis into the ritual priests is based on Buddhist Texts. Its confirmation is found in the Śrauta manuals of the Brāhmaṇas also (ANM, pp.289-291). The huge gains offered to the priests must have increased their greed and they even tried to gain kingship which was expressly banned for the Brāhmaṇas by the Vedic literature. “Un-suited for kingship is the Brāhmaṇa”, declared Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (tr. Eggling, Pt.III, p.4), but all the ancient rules had been changed and many of them were made into their direct opposites. We shall probably never know
p.125
Even niyoga (getting children after the husband’s death), was permitted for Brāhmaṇa widows (Arthaśāstra.3.6.24) (for further details, see R.N.Sharma, Brahmins through the Ages, Delhi 1977). “Hence the old nobility and priesthood melted and merged in a common stream of humanity.” The Yuga Purāṇa declared, “In that case people would lose their nobility and religion. Brāhmaṇas Kshatriyas, Vaiśyas and Śūdras will behave and dress themselves alike.” (Quoted by Buddha Prakash, op cit, p.200).
Thus we see that the Brahmanical caste distinctions, rituals, sacrifices, even wasteful expenditure on birth, marriage and death ceremonies was denounced openly. Laws of the land were made applicable to all without distinction of caste or creed. Hence, writing after the commencement of the Christian era, Aśvaghosha reflects that “the Brāhmaṇas as caste had disappeared and instead of cāturvarṇya (four castes), there was only one caste (ekvarṇa).” (Vajrasūchi, p.193, quoted ibid.).
It is important, however, to note that all these policies were against the traditional Indian social and religious and political system. During that period no native Indian dynasty could have gone so much against the Indian traditions. Only the immigrants of Mor clan could do so. Perhaps this was one of the causes of their downfall too. This was certainly the cause of their inglorious ignorance by the Puranic writers.
5. Chandragupta Maurya has been identified with ‘Kand’ of Masudi, ‘Kaid’ of Firdausi, and ‘Kafand’ of Mujmul-ut-tawarikh by Buddha Prakash (SIHC, pp.91ff.). Now, the last named authority is quoted by Elliot and Dowson at p.108, vol.II of their ‘History of India as told by its own historians’. The important point, however, is that ‘Kafand’ is expressly mentioned as non-Hindu (non-Indian), who made fine speeches and won the heart of the Indians by his sweet words and complimentary deeds. If the proposed identification of Kafand with Chandragupta is correct, then this is a clear statement that he was a foreigner in India.
Thus we can conclude that the correct name of the clan of Chandragupta was Mor. It is the same word which is the surname of some people in England and written as `Moor’. It is, again, this word, which is the European `Moor’. We have already noted how the Jats spread out from Central Asia in various directions and many of them went to Europe, where they were called Gots/Juts.We have also mentioned how the Jat clan Sibi, called Sibis or Suevis, went into
p.126
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
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
`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,
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
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).
(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
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
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.
___________________________________________________________________________________
THE END
__________________________
