6. Anaryas (or Mlecchas) and other tribes or clans

The Paumacariya mentions sometimes such peoples who are distinct from the Aryan, and are called Mlecchas or Anaryas. In connection with the war-campaign of Lavana and Ankusa, the Paumacariya states in general that they conquered many countries of which some were Aryan and some were non-Aryan, but they have not been specifically distinguished (desa ariyaanariya 98.63). On the occasion of the attack of king Ativirya of Nandyavartapura on Bharata, it is said in the Paumacariya (37.5) that the former had his allies. in the rulers of many non-Aryan countries. Here also the specific differentiation is not made between the Aryan and the non-Aryan countries. It is on the occasion of the attack of some barbarous

GEOGRAPHICAL PLACES, PEOPLES AND TRIBES 545 tribes on the territory of Janaka, that the Paumacariya (27.7-9) mentions Mlecchas, the Sabaras, the Kiratas, and the people of Kamboja, Suka (Saka ?) and Kapota (Kapisa ? ) as non-Aryan and using both the terms Anarya and Mleccha in the same sense. Further the Kagonnda tribe of the Vindhya forest (34.41-46) is referred to as a Mleccha people and elsewhere there is allusion to a habitation of the Mlecchas lying in the vicinity of the Sammeta mountain (39.64). Thus all these references indicate that the Mlecchas were occupying the trans-Himalayan region N.W. Frontiers and the mountainous region of the Vindhyas spreading from the west up to the east i.e. up to the Sammeta mountain. The Paumacariya further sporadically refers to the Pulindas and the Bhillas. The Pulindas are mentioned to be inhabiting the forest region of the Simhaninanda-atavi lying to the south of the Ganges, probably to the north of Chotanagpur where Sita was abondoned being exiled by Rama (94.43). At 104.20 also they are mentioned as forest-people. The Kathasaritsagara locates the kingdom of Pulindas in the Vindhya region (4.22). Their capital was Pulindanagara lying to the south-east of Dasarna (Political History of Ancient India, 79 & 258). The Varanga Carita (8.3) refers to them as Anaryas. Thus They seem to have been occupying some parts of the Vidhya region. About the Bhillas the Paumacariya states that they were also a forest people (12.13). The Bhils (i. e, Bhillas) are said to be a pre-Aryan tribe who inhabited the Vindhya, Satpura and Ajanta hills. At one time they held sway over a major portion of India. Now They are distributed among the regions of Mewar, Malwa, Khandesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan (Life in Ancient India, p. 359). The line of demarcation between the Aryans and the non-Aryans has been fluctuating from time to time. Senart¹ writes that the fair coloured people who conquered the aborigines of this country in ancient time were called as the Aryas while the latter were dark coloured and were subjugated by the former so they were called Anaryas as revealed in the Vedic-literature. Later on those who accepted the Varnasrama Dharma were included into the Aryan fold while those who remained outside that fold and did not accept the Indo-Aryan social structure were classed as non-Aryans. The evidences from the Buddhist Literature also reveal that those who accepted the four theoretical divisions divisions of people were broadly distinguished as Aryans from the rest of the populace, looked 1. Caste in India, p, 122f. 35

546 A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAM down upon as Milakkhas or Milakkhus=(Mlecchas¹). According to the Jaina literature those who did not know the language of the Aryans and committed various sins were known as Anaryas. They are also called as Milakkhus or Milakkhas. They were distinguished as Paccantiyas because they resided on the border of the Aryan countries,² The classification of people into non-Aryan category has varied in the Jaina literature also. The Tiloyapannatti (4.1333f) refers to the Mlecchakhanda which was conquered by Cakravatin Bharata. It puts the three division of Uttara Bharata and the two divisions of Daksina Bharata into the Mlecchakhanda. The Uttara. (10.16) mentions the Dasyus and the Mlecchas as Non-Aryan people. The Prasnavyakaranasutra calls the Sakas, Yavanas, Sabaras, etc. as non-Aryans (Vide Jaina Agama Sahityaman Gujarata, p. 135, fn.). The Varangacaritam (8.6) refers to the Kamboja, Kasmira and the Barbar countries as Mlecchadesas. How the boundary of the Aryan country has changed from time to time with the Jainas can be known from the following evidences: The Brhatkalpasutra mentions that the Jaina ascetics were allowed to move up to Anga-magadha (East), Kosambi (South), Thupa (South), Thuna (West) and Kunala (North). Later on king Samprati extended the limits and 25 countries were declared to be Aryan. They were Magadha, Anga, Vanga, Kalinga, Kasi, Kosala, Kuru, Kusatta, Pancala, Jangala, Surattha, Videha. Vaccha, Sandilla, Malaya, Vacca, Varana, Dasanna, Gedi, Sindhu, Sovira, Surasena, Bhangi, Purivatta, Kunala, Lada, and Kegaiaddha. Thus the whole of north India up to the Vindhyas as its southern limit was known as Aryan and the rest of the land was considered to be non-Aryan. To the author of the Paumacariya the hilly tribes of the north, northwest and the Vindhyas were known as the Mleccha people and it seems that those people had not yet been Aryanised, The Paumacariya further reveals that its author has given a new definition to some of the ancient tribes. It tells us that Vidyadhara king Indra of Rathanupura or the Vijayardha mountain (the Vindhya mountains) held sway over many peoples who were known after the name of the place to which they belonged (7.49-50). The people belonging to Asinapura, Asurapura, Kinnarapura, Gandhavvapura, Jakkhapura and Vaisanapura are called as Asinas, Asuras, Kinnaras, Gandharvas, 1. Vide India as Described in Early Texts of Buddhism and Jainism, p. 139. 2. Life in Ancient India, p. 144. 3. 50; also Nisi. Bha, 16. p. 1111, (Vide Life in Ancient India, p. 250°)

GEOGRAPHICAL PLACES, PEOPLES AND TRIBES Yaksas and Vaisas respectively. 547 At 3.154 it mentions that the Vijayardha region (i. e. the Vindhyas) was occupied by the Kinnaras, Kimpurisas and the Gandharvas. A study of Indian literature reveals that these people are mentioned in various works. Their identity as some tribes or clans is not clear. Researches carried out by various scholars have proved that they were people of very ancient times. With the passage of time they went into complete oblivion and later on they were relegated to the position of either hobgoblins or demigods. When Vimalasuri defines them on a new basis, i. e. the people belonging to particular places coming to be known after the names of those particular places-it seems to be an attempt to assign some suitable historical place to the peoples forgotten in course of time. In the following lines an attempt has time made to identify them. Asinas: Their identity is obscure. However Panini (5.3.117) refers to the Asanis as a war-like tribe of the North-West Frontier (India as Known to Panini, p. 438). Asuras: They can be identified with the Assyrian people of ancient times whose country formed part of the Persian Empire in the fifth century B. C. and that country is mentioned in the old Persian Behistun inscription as Athura, and in Susain as Assura (India as Known to Panini, p. 447). In the Puranas they are in juxta position with the Suras (gods), their allies and rivals. Kinnaras: On the basis of pieces of evidence from the Brahmanical and the Buddhist literature the modern Kanaur in the upper valley of the Sutlez where the head waters of Candrabhaga approach near it, is identified with the country of the Kinnaras (See India in Kalidasa; (B.S. Upadhyaya) 1947, p. 62). Gandharvas :-On the evidences from the Raghuvamsa the Gandharvas or Gandharas are said to be the people of that country whose capitals were Taksasila and Puskalavati (India in Kalidasa; (B.S. Upadhyaya) 1947, p. 67). Yaksas : In the Valmiki Ramayana we find them settled in the south and were chased off from there by the Raksasas. Prof. C.V. Vaidya regards them as the aboriginal people of the south, who were later on made to flee to the north (The Riddle of the Ramayana p. 99). But it is also told in the Valmiki Ramayana that when the Raksasas vacated Lanka, Brahma appointed Vaisravana, as the Lokapala of Lanka (7,3). Then we find them mentioned in the ancient literature also as the inhabitants of the north, therefore it is possible that they went from north to south. Vaisas :-Not identified. Further the Paumacariya reveals that the Vidyadharas, Raksasas and the Vanaras were very ancient people and we find that they have been

548 A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAM completely Jainised or the Jaina tradition has assimilated them and has depicted them as a cultured people. In the following lines an attempt is made to assess the probability of their historical existence. They had their Ramayana², the those references Vidyadharas -According to the Paumacariyam³ Nami and Vinami established the Vidyadhara dynasty. It was Rsabha, the first Tirthankara who installed them as the first kings of the Vijayardha mountain. They were called Vidyadhara because they were gifted with supernatural powers (Vidyas). It is quite apparent from the study of the Paumacariya that the Vidyadharas were not imaginary people. own territories and kingdoms. In the Valmiki Vidyadharas are mentioned but sporadically and do not give any solid information about their settlements and territories. The Jaina tradition always mentions the Vijayardha or the Vaitadhya (Vindhya) mountains as the place of their settlements. An ancient inscription refers to the Vidyadharas and on that basis the Vidhyadharas have been identified with the aboriginal tribes. of the Vindhyas by Dr. B.C. law. It will be worthwhile to quote him who records, "In the Hathigumpha inscription of Kharavela the Rathikas and Bhojakas are introduced in such a manner as to have no room for doubt that they were ruling chiefs of the Vidyadhara settlements (Vijadharadhivasa). The Jambudivapannatti connects the Vidyadharas with the Vaitadhya or Vindhya range and speaks of their eighteen settlements. When the Jatakas speak of sixteen Bhojaputtas, one may understand that they were the ruling chiefs of sixteen Vidyadhara tracts along the Vindhyas. From these references it may be inferred that the Vidyadharas were not mythical beings but some aboriginal tribes that settled along the Vindhyas". Even in the seventh cent. A. D. the princes of the Silahara dynasty are found to be tracing their origin to the Vidyadharas and the Navasahasankacarita vouchsafes to the existence of a Vidyadhara dynasty ruling to the south of the Narmada-i. e. the region of the Vindhyas or Veyaddhaª. Raksasas: The Paumacariya states that Vidyadhara Meghavahana was made the first ruler of the Raksasadvipa. He left his Vidyadhara brethren behind in the Vindhyas and carved out a separate territory in the south. The Paumacariya further mentions twice that the Raksasas were 1. See Supra. 'Origin of various Vamsas'. 2. Ibid. 3. IDET BJ, pp. 106-106. 4. See Karakandacariu, Int. pp. 41,46,48 (ED. H. L. .. Jain). 5. See Origin of Vidyadhara Dynasty Supra.

GEOGRAPHICAL PLACES, PEOPLES AND TRIBES 549 not demons but as they protected the islands (rakkhanti Rakkhasa khalu diva 2.25.7%; 43.14) hence they came to be known as Raksasas (protectors). The Brahmanical tradition also depicts the same thing. The story of their origin³ indicates that they were the protectors of the water-lands. These references indicate that they were ancient people. Mr. Gustav Opport² regards, them as the original inhabitants of this country. Prof. Rapson³ notes that as early as the Rgveda the Raksasas formed a people of India. Shri C. V. Vaidya on the basis of the name of Salakatankata belonging to the maternal lineage of Ravana as mentioned in the Valmiki Ramayana, concludes that an Adivasi Jati (aboriginal tribe) of that name was settled in Lanka before the advent of Rama. But the Jaina tradition maintains that they migrated from North 5. Dr. V. S. Agrawal also states that the Raksasas were probably of north-west group and of the same racial character as the Pisacas. The Raksasas, Nagas and Pisacas fight in the Bharata war on both sides. He further states that there is a tribe Raksanis settled in Chagai district of north Balucistan (India as Known to Panini, p. 448). The Valmiki Ramayana also reveals that there were three branches of the Raksasas. One was represented by Viradha occuping the northern part of the Dandakaranya, another by Kabandha called as Danava and the third by Raksasas or Raksas who occupied Lanka. Thus they occupied a greater part of south India. Their ancestral history depict that they passed through many political ups and downs and it was Ravana who made a war compaign to conquer the whole of India. That they had established themselves in Mathura, is evident from the fact that the son-in-law of Ravana was the ruler of Mathura. According to the Valmiki Ramayana the relatives of Ravana, namely Tadaka and Marica had occupied the eastern plains of India between the rivers Sone and Ganges and their atrocities had touched the land between Ayodhya and Mithila. All these events depict that they were a strong and powerful tribe. 8 The Paumacariya speaks highly of their culture, manners and etiquettes. Even the political and the social aspects of their life do not indicate that they were wild and inhuman. Their food habits are said to be 1. Ibid. 2. The Original Inhabitants of India, p. 534. 3. The Cambridge History of India, Vol, I. p. 94 (1955). 4. The Riddle of the Ramayana, pp. 99-100. 5. See Origin of various Vamsas (Supra). 6. Ramayanakalina Samaja, p. 25. 7. See Ravana story (Ch. 4). 8. Supra. Ch. 4-I R (XIV).

550 A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAM completely human. Their shapes were not fierce or abominable. In the religious field they have been completely Jainised. But in the Valmiki Ramayana, they have been painted cruel, wicked and of diabolic nature. They are said to be fierce-looking and are depicted just like demons¹. Still there are no less references in the Valmiki Ramayana which depict them as human beings and of good looking. The descriptions of Lanka, the palace of Ravana, the luxurious life there and the council of Ravana indicate that they were not always fierce looking and in no way backward 2. Then the question is why the Valmiki Ramayana at other places should have depicted them as cruel, of abominable look and as devilish whereas the Jaina tradition should describe them as human and religious. The reason seems to be very clear. It is said in the Valmiki Ramayana that the Rahsasas were the inveterate enemies of the Brahmanical cult of sacrifice 'Yajna'. They destroyed and put obstacles in the performance of those rites. The story of Visvamitra and the Dandakaranya journey of Rama quite sufficiently depict it. Further it is a well known fact that the Jaina religion always deplored the cult of sacrifice which is quite against its ethics. And as the Raksasas also opposed this Vedic cult of Himsa, the Jaina assigned to them a place of respect in their literature and did not make any onslaught on them. There is some truth in not depicting them as devilish because in the Valmiki Ramayana also there are several references to the effect that they performed penances (5. 59. 4), studied the Vedas and their auxiliaries (5. 18. 2; 6. 10.8; 6. 109. 23; 6. 92. 60), knew the state-craft (6.71.29; 6. 63. 14-1) and learned Sanskrit (5. 30. 18; 3. 11. 55). The facts that they (Raksasas) obstructed sacrifices, that thay troubled Munis who advocated sacrifices, that they on the strength of their valour opposed the Aryans and did not allow them to enter the south, that they made their own efforts to dominate the north, became responsible for their being depicted as cruel and abominable in the Valmiki Ramayana Mr. S. N. Vyas writes that they were depicted so because they were the born enemies of the Aryans³. Mr. C. V. Vidya says that really speaking these tribes were advanced but on account of their opposition to the Aryans they are depicted as cruel. Because they opposed Brahmanical cult therefore they are depicted as Daityas and blood consumers just as the Semitic people depicted their antagonistic tribes as unholy, fierce, cruel and barbaric 5. 1. Valmiki Ramayana, 3.2, 13, 69. 2. Valmiki Ramayana, 5.2,5;6.11. 3. Ramayana Kalina Samaja, p. 31. 4. The Riddle of the Ramayana, p- 94. 5. RKSJ, p. 52.

GEOGRAPHICAL PLACES, PEOPLES AND TRIBES 551 Really speaking they were civilised and had a culture of their own. Pargiter¹ remarks that civilization of the Raksasas was as high as that of north India. Mr. S.N. Vyasa remarks that inspite of their cruel habits the Raksasas occupied an important place in the political history of India before the Mahabharatakala and their civilization was great and refined 2. was still a child, a His face reflected into Dasamukha Ravana:-It has become a belief that Ravana had ten heads and twenty arms. The original basis of this belief is the Valmiki Ramayana in which he has been described as such in the Uttarakanda and at some places in the remaining portion of the Valmiki Ramayana This tradition has been followed by the later Brahmanical works. But there is the Jaina tradition which depicts Ravana in the natural human form. The Paumacariya states that when Ravana locket of nine gems was put round his neck. those gems and thus nine more images of his face became visible so his father named him Dasamukha (7.96). It seems that a wrong belief took root in the Indian literature and art, otherwise why the Valmiki Ramayana itself should describe him as two eyed and two armed at several places. Hanumat describes Ravana as one faced and two armed, when for the first time the former sees the latter in Lanka³. Sita mentions two eyes of Ravana. At other places also he is said to have two arms. At the time of his being killed by Rama he is described as having one head 6. Mr. Pargiter thinks that Ravana was probably a royal title in the Tamil word 'iraivan' or 'ireivan' = king, lord, god, sovereign and Dasamukha or one of its synonymous forms was probably his personal Dravadian name which was sanskritised and accordingly gave rise to the fable that he had ten heads." Mr. S. N. Vyasa says that Dasamukha was merely an address and not that he had ten heads. Similarly we have even at present such persons who are called Chaturbhuja but they do not have four arms, The very name of ancient king Sahasrabahu did not mean that he had one thousand arms. It only meant that he might have the strength of 1. .Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, P, 227. 2. Ramayana Kalina Samaja p.16. 3. 5.10.15, 24, 25. 4. 5.22.18 See also 5.42. 23. 5. 6.40.13. 6.107.54-57. See also 6,111. 34-36. 6. 7. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, p. 242 fn. 5. 8. Ramayana Kalina Samaja, p. 35.

552 A CRITICAL STUDY OF PAUMACARIYAM one thousand arms. The name of the father of Rama was Dasaratha but it never became a belief that he had ten chariots or drove on ten chariots at the same time. It can mean that he possessed the strength of ten Padmapurana¹. chariots and the same explanation is hinted at in the Vanaras: According to the Paumacariya the Vanaras originated from the Vidyadharas. Srikantha, their first ancestor migrated to the south and made Kiskindhipuri as his settlement. The Vanaras formed a branch of the Vidyadharas and they had brotherly relations with the Raksasas. They were human beings. Their dynasty was named Vanaravamsa for they adopted the figure of monkey as their national emblem." According to the Valmiki Ramayana, the first Vanara originated from Brahma on the Meru mountain. He was made to settle at Kiskindhipura in the south³. There is no specific reference that the Vanaras and Raksasas were related filialy. Mr. S. V. Visvanatha on the evidence of Mahabharata (Adi, 67, 7) says that the Vanaras were akin to the Raksasas both being descendants of Pulastya 4, Even in the Valmiki Ramayana (5.51.2-3 Raksasesa Harisastvam bhrata kusalamabravit) for this reason perhaps Ravana and Sugriva are spoken of as brothers or at least as of the same family. The Valmiki Ramayana depicts the Vanaras as monkeys with their tails. But this is not the case every time. They are even depicted like human beings 6. As regards their migration to the south Mr. Manmathanatha Roy says that the Vanaras were the aboriginal Vratyas of India who migrated to the southern plateau after the arrival of the Aryans. As regards their animal like name it has been taken for granted that in ancient India there were tribes who bore animal names on account of their worshipping some animal deity or on account of having some tribal sign of an animal. The Nagas, and the Raksas also belong to that type of people. 1. Dasaratho dasarathasamanarathi mahiyasa balena / 2. sumanasam nama nagaram jigamisaya......(Patalakhanda, Ch. 112. Vol. II, p. 732). See 'Origin of Various Vamsas' and 'Ravana Carita'-(Supra). 3. Ibid. 4. Racial Synthesis in Hindu Culture, p. 83. 5. See Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, p. 278. 6. See Ramayana Kalina Samaja, 7. Vide Ibid. p. 73. 8. RKSJ, p. 73; See p. 17 also.

GEOGRAPHICAL PLACES, PEOPLES AND TRIBES 553 There are historical evidences to show that some dynasties bore animal names. The Naga¹ dynasty is said to have ruled at Mathura and Padmavati during the 3rd and 4th century A.D. Even in the medieval times many Naga kings ruled at Bhogavati (Ramtek) from 11th to 14th century A. D. and they had snake as the 'ensign' of their banner.2 Figure of monkey also was adopted by a dynasty. King Kandara of Ananda dynasty had his banner ensigned with the figure of Golangula (a species of monkey³). The Valmiki Ramayana for the first time depicts the Vanaras as having tails. Scholars explain it as follows: There was a custom in some royal families that at the time of coronation a tail was attached. There is still a tribe in the Andaman islands, whose people wear tails. All these evidences prove that the Vanaras were an ancient tribe. Mr. S. N. Vyasa considers them as a Vanavasi people-forest tribe and they were called Vanaras because of their fickle nature 'capalata". Such nick names are not strange. The Russians ridiculed the Japanese by calling them 'yellow monkeys'8. That the Vanaras were an ancient people, is corroborated by the Vasudevahindi also. It mentions that Vasudeva married many girls belonging to Vanaravamsaº. 1. The Vakataka Gupta Age; Dr. A. S. Alteker (1954), p. 33. 2. See Nayakumaracariu, p. XXXV. 3. The Vakataka Gupta Age; Dr. A. S. Alteker (1954), p. 66. 4. Bengali Ramayana, D. S. Sen. p. 52. 5. V. D. Savarkara-Ramayana Samalocana. 6. RKSJ, p. 71. 7. Ibid, p. 72. 8. The Riddle of the Ramayana p.96. 9. Vasudevahindi Vol. I., (Gujarati), Int. p. 4. f n. l.