Pratihara Rajputs: Rajputs or Brahmin Origin
This article examines the nuanced meanings of terms such as Vipra, Brahmanyam, and Dwija as seen in the Jodhpur inscription of the Mandore Pratiharas. It explores the linguistic and contextual meanings of these words within Hindu scriptures, Smritis, and historical sources, while deferring the discussion on the Kshatriya identity of the Pratiharas to a future article.
Background
Claim: Harichandra, the founder of the Mandore branch of the Pratihara dynasty, was a Brahmin. This claim is largely based on the Jodhpur inscription issued by King Bauk, a ruler from the same lineage.
The inscription describes Harichandra as a great Vipra, one well-versed in Vedic scriptures:
“Babhûva Rohilladdhyańko Veda-śāstra-artha-parāgaḥ” ("He became well-versed in the meaning of the Vedas and Shastras.")
This description has led some to interpret Vipra as a reference to Brahminhood by birth. However, scholarly analysis suggests that the term is likely metaphorical or honorific, rather than indicating literal caste status.
Meaning and Usage of ‘Vipra’
Contextual Meaning
While Vipra is commonly associated with Brahmins, its usage across Hindu literature shows that it is not always a hereditary indicator. In various ritual, poetic, and honorific contexts, Vipra can refer to any spiritually accomplished or learned person, including those from Kshatriya or Vaishya varnas.
A notable reference appears in the Mudgala Purana, in which Vishvamitra, originally a Kshatriya, is addressed as a Vipra even before attaining Brahminhood through penance. However, Yajnavalkya explicitly states that penance is still required to attain actual Brahmin status. This distinction reinforces the idea that Vipra was used before spiritual transformation, and not always tied to birth.
Atri and Baudhayana Smritis
- The Atri Smriti describes a warrior-king as a Vipra based on his valor and battlefield success, suggesting that Kshatriyas could earn the title through merit.
- In the Baudhayana Smriti, those engaged in non-Vedic professions (e.g., herding, trade, craftsmanship, message-carrying, usury) are criticized and said to be treated like Shudras, even if they are Vipras. However, commentator Acharya Govinda Swami clarifies that Vipra here refers not only to Brahmins, but also includes Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, further supporting the broad application of the term.
Bhrigu Smriti and Ritual Context
The Bhrigu Smriti supports a ritual-based definition of Vipra. During specific ceremonies, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas could be addressed as Vipras. Once the rituals ended and they resumed their usual roles—warfare for Kshatriyas, trade for Vaishyas—the title no longer applied. Thus, Vipra functioned as a temporary, context-based designation.
The Case of Harichandra in the Jodhpur Inscription
Interpretation of Two Wives
The Jodhpur inscription mentions two wives of Harichandra—one described as Dwija, the other as Kshatriya. This has led some to suggest that the Dwija wife was a Brahmin, while the Kshatriya wife was of warrior descent.
However, this interpretation is likely inaccurate. Historical analysis suggests that the term Dwija here may reflect ritual purity or orthodox lineage rather than varna difference. Scholars note that the four Agnikula Rajput clans, including the Pratiharas, had associations with Buddhism and Jainism before re-adopting Vedic Dharma.
During this transitional phase, many Kshatriyas became Vratyas (fallen or heterodox), while others retained Vedic traditions. It is plausible that:
- The Dwija wife came from a Kshatriya family that maintained its orthodox Vedic practices.
- The Kshatriya wife belonged to a family reintegrating into orthodox dharma.
Hence, both wives were likely Kshatriyas but described differently based on ritual standing.
Legal Implication in Dharmashastra
Even if one accepts that Harichandra's Dwija wife was a Brahmin (a claim not strongly supported), Dharmashastric law would not consider their children as Brahmins.
According to Vishnu Smriti (XV.37), sons born from a Brahmin mother and Kshatriya father—classified as Pratiloma unions—are not eligible for inheritance and are excluded from formal varna recognition. Thus, even hypothetically, Harichandra's sons cannot be considered Brahmins, neither ritually nor legally.
Meaning of ‘Brahmanyam’
The term Brahmanyam appears in the inscription in reference to the sons from Harichandra’s Dwija wife. While at first glance it might seem to imply Brahminhood, its actual meaning is clarified in Panini’s Astadhyayi (5.1.8):
“Brahmanyam” = That which is beneficial to Brahmins.
This suggests that the sons were not Brahmins by caste but were patrons of Brahmins, upholders of Dharma, and supporters of Vedic traditions.
Comparison Between the Two Sets of Sons
The inscription draws a contrast between the sons of the two wives:
- Sons of the Kshatriya wife are described as indulgent in wine and less suitable for kingship.
- Sons of the Dwija wife are praised for their devotion to Brahmins, aligning with the concept of Brahmanyam as service to Vedic ideals rather than Brahminhood itself.
Additional Evidence: Karaṇika-Vipra Reference
A 10th-century Buddhist inscription from Bengal, cited by the historian @historiakayasth, refers to a Karaṇika-Vipra. While Karaṇika might indicate a profession, other contemporary records show it being used for the Kayastha caste. This again demonstrates that Vipra was applied beyond traditional Brahmins.
Conclusion
The terms Vipra, Dwija, and Brahmanyam—as used in the Jodhpur inscription—do not confirm Brahmin origins for Harichandra or his descendants. Rather, these terms reflect spiritual accomplishments, ritual honorifics, and social responsibilities, applied broadly within Dvija varnas. Historical, scriptural, and grammatical evidence all support the interpretation that Harichandra and his lineage remained Kshatriya, with deep devotion to Brahminical Dharma but without claiming Brahminhood by birth.