Tracing the Origin of Gurjars

[aps]

Dear HumGujjar,
Regarding Tibet Arabs alliances you may have so many references like the one as follows:
Al- Hind: The slave kings and the Islamic conquest. 2

books.google.co.in/books?isbn=9004095098

André Wink - 1991 - ‎History
The Arabs understood, from the very beginning, the commercial importance of ... The threat of a Tibetan-Arab alliance came to be felt until deep in northern India ...

[aps]

Dear Ashok,

Please provide a original reference where Mihir Kula is mentioned as a Huna.

During slavery period, the Brits used to call or compare Indians as dogs. It does not means that all Indians were dogs but the slaves to the them were certainly dogs. One of that kind were biting dogs who used to bite their own people on behalf of their masters. the other kind were the barking dogs who used to bark on their own people on behalf of their masters.

In absence of any original information why should I believe that Mihir Kula was Huna? However I do believe that the information about Mihir Kula was manipulated by some barking dog to please his masters and later due to plagiarism or to please some people in power this information was propagated.

[Ashok Harsana]

You are correct AP Bhaisahab,

Even I am of the same opinion that Hepthalites were a branch of Yuezhis (as mentioned earlier in my posts). They were connected to Hunas due to wrong reasons I suppose. MihirGul himself was a Shiva worshipper which brings him into the category of other Hindu Kshatriyas (most of them being Shaivites). We should study about Khigila the hepthalite to know in depth about their origins.

Regards

[aps]

Being deleted since the message was duplicated.

[aps]

Feb 11, 2015 10:23:28 GMT 5.5 Ashok Harsana said:

You are correct AP Bhaisahab,

Even I am of the same opinion that Hepthalites were a branch of Yuezhis (as mentioned earlier in my posts). They were connected to Hunas due to wrong reasons I suppose. MihirGul himself was a Shiva worshipper which brings him into the category of other Hindu Kshatriyas (most of them being Shaivites). We should study about Khigila the hepthalite to know in depth about their origins.

Regards

Dear Ashok,
My research is almost complete and presently under the process of re-examinations of all the facts.
I have already covered Maharja Khingla is detail.
Maharaja Khingla was a Gurjjar of Adhana gotra. His inscription clearly indicate his name as Khingla Odiyana.
Swat area is Sanskrit records in mentioned as Udyana and the Gujjar rulers of Udyana were named so which is a present day Adhana gotra. The Grandmother of my wife belonged to this celebrated clan of Gurjaras.
Maharaja Khingla was worshipper of lord Ganesha as the inscription itself is found inscribed on the pedestal of the statue of lord Ganesha.
Hepthalites were actually Laxmanites, as the power was transferred from the hands of Kushites to Laxmanites in 5th. century AD.

Yashodharman and Mihirkula were both Gurjaras and that was an internal fight between the two. According to my research, all the indications lead to the fact that Yashodharman was a Gurgara of Pratiharas sub-clan.
There was no person as Chandra Gupta Vikaramaditya , whose character is entirely fabricated.
Chandra Gupta son of Samudra Gupta murdered his own brother named Ram Gupta and later married his wife named Dhruv-Swamini. Ram Gupta earlier surrendered his own wife to Khasas to save his own life. Khasas were rulers of present day Uttarakhand and were one of the long time trusted vassals of Gurjaras.

[humgujjar]

Feb 9, 2015 10:27:26 GMT 5.5 Ashok Harsana said:

Hun Gotra among Gurjars: This is a topic which has made me curious during my research on Gurjars. I ended up deciding the following two possibilities:
1. Huns who were defeated by Yasodharman were assimilated into Gurjars (which was a common practice those days).
2. Huns or Hepthalites were a clan of Yuezhis which entered India as later Yuezhis. This theroy is further supported by the fact that most of the royal clans (among Gurjars and Rajputs) such as Tomars, Chauhans etc. were in turn traced their origin to Hepthalites.

I believe the research work by AP Singh Bhaisahab and Hum Gujjar ji might shed some light over this.
Regards

Ashok Bhai, this is a great point that you have raised. I think the confusion around the Hun-Gujjar relationship is caused by the Chinese ancient records that call them with very similar names, i.e. Ye-ta (White Huns) and Yueh-ti (Gurjara). The Ye-ta (White Huns) are often confused by historians with Little Yueh-ti (Hindu Shahis).

Further confusion occurs by the fact that in different regions they are known by different names. The Ye-ta are also known as Sveta Huna, White Huns, Hepthalites, and Abdalis. And the Yueh-ti are also known as Yuchi, Yuezhi, Guchi, Kushana, Kasana, Gurjara, Gujjar, Guzar, Kedara, Kitolo, Cedarites, Kitor, Kitorman, and Hindu Shahis.

Regarding the Gujjar clan called Hun, I have the same opinion as A.P. Singh Saab that Hun Gujjars got their name from Huna-Desa while they were ruling there. Although, I believe that Hun Gujjars are mixed with Hunas i.e. Gujjars/Yueh-tis must have taken Huna wives at some period. So in that sense, I don't think its wrong to say that Huns and Gujjars are related to each other. The Pakistani city called Hunza was named after the Gujjar Huns and not Shaka Huns.

Mihir Kula was the son of Toramana Shahi, both of them had the name Kedara engraved on their coins. Kedara was a powerful Kushana king who fought the Huns and conquered their kingdom in Iran. Toramana and Mihir Kula also fought the Huns in Iran. The Persian name Mihir Kula, if translated into Sanskrit, means Raghu Vanshi or Surya Vanshi. The coins of Mihir Kula also make it obvious that he was a Hindu, which means Mihir Kula was definitely a Raghu Vanshi Kshtriya. The only significant people around the same time in India which called themselves Raghu Vanshi were the Gurjaras (Gujjars). Therefore, I believe it all points to the fact that Mihir Kula was a Kasana Gujjar.

Feb 12, 2015 9:33:34 GMT 5.5 aps said:

Dear Ashok,
My research is almost complete and presently under the process of re-examinations of all the facts.
I have already covered Maharja Khingla is detail.
Maharaja Khingla was a Gurjjar of Adhana gotra. His inscription clearly indicate his name as Khingla Odiyana.
Swat area is Sanskrit records in mentioned as Udyana and the Gujjar rulers of Udyana were named so which is a present day Adhana gotra. The Grandmother of my wife belonged to this celebrated clan of Gurjaras.
Maharaja Khingla was worshipper of lord Ganesha as the inscription itself is found inscribed on the pedestal of the statue of lord Ganesha.
Hepthalites were actually Laxmanites, as the power was transferred from the hands of Kushites to Laxmanites in 5th. century AD.

Yashodharman and Mihirkula were both Gurjaras and that was an internal fight between the two. According to my research, all the indications lead to the fact that Yashodharman was a Gurgara of Pratiharas sub-clan.
There was no person as Chandra Gupta Vikaramaditya , whose character is entirely fabricated.
Chandra Gupta son of Samudra Gupta murdered his own brother named Ram Gupta and later married his wife named Dhruv-Swamini. Ram Gupta earlier surrendered his own wife to Khasas to save his own life. Khasas were rulers of present day Uttarakhand and were one of the long time trusted vassals of Gurjaras.

I was under the impression that Yashodharman was a descendant of Vyagramukha (a Chapa Gujjar). And I agree with you hundred percent that the conflict between Yashodharman and Mihir Kula was an internal conflict, and that both kings were Gujjars.

[Ashok Harsana]

Dear Hum Gujjar and AP Bhaisahab,

Yasodharman belonged to Aulikara family of Gurjars. Mihigul was defeated by the association of Baladitya (Later Guptas) and his 3 Commanders namely Yasodharman, Jayabhatta and Duttabhatta (who was called Dudda-1 the first among the Pratihar lineage ). Jayabhatta and Duttabhatta were probably from same family and this family later ruled Bhinmal during Harsha's period. They were Chap Gurjars without any doubt.
Chapotkristh (Chap + Utkarsth literally meaning Brilliant Archers)

AP Bhaisahab, is it correct to state that the Hephthalite named Khigila was alternatively called Jabula or Jabula Shahi?

Hum Brother, If you read various sources describing Hepththalites then you might come across the name of MihirGuls son:
Vasuka

Shahi title which was used by Hephthalites was being used by Jaipal and other Rulers of Kabul until 10th century.
Gul is quite a prominent surname is Pakistan.


I came across my own post in allempires :

These white Huns had nothing to do with original huns......In fact When they were attacked by Kok-turks or genuine Huns, They had to enter India in order to save their life....The Indian could not distinguish them with the Actual Huns..The Indian thought that it is athe wave of Hunas only....



The similarity between the names of Hepthalites and Huns also created the confusion....But we know that people ruling in nearby areas had the practice of copying names to get fame...(like using the title shah, khan or Han)



The first attack under "Chu-Han" (CHU-Khan) in 455 AD was repelled back by SkandaGupta and India was saved from Huns for a short period of 10 years. In 465 AD fresh Hun armies attacked Guptas under Tour-han (TOOR KHAN) or Tourman-1.



They were not Huns they were actually a part of Yuhechee (Yu-chi) tribe, Like Kushans.



We have to go deeper to understand the realation between Hepthalites and Kushans......





1. Hsiung-Nu (chin dynasty) under Tou-man defeated Yuchees in around 178 BC. (Note here The name of the king of Hsiung-Nu was Tou-man).

Before this Yuchees were clearly deeply involved in the local politics (though they were called Iranian by origin, They aquired all the local customs and traditions). Tou-man had conflicts with his son Mao-Tun for that, the Yu-chi were given mao-tun as a hostage by his father T'ou-man. T'ou-man then led the Hsiung-nu in an attack upon the Yu-chee, hoping that Mao-tun would be killed by the Yu-chi. However, Mao-tun escaped and in 209 BC killed his father. After his fathers death Mao-tun conducted campaigns against Yu-chees.




2. They defeated Sai (or Sythians) who had to fled to south (Sind, Punjab and Gujrat, where they ruled until 400 AD)...



3. The Hsiung-Nu agian fell upon the Yuchees in around 130 BC and pushed them westwards before reaching Bactria. In addition to it a group of Yu-chi were left behind, possibly conquered by the Wu-sun or Hiung-nu. This group is called the little Yu-chi and the larger group which continued on, the Ta Yu-chee (or great Yu-chi) to distinguish them.



4. They were driven in to the Bactria region...



5. The Yu-chee conquered Bactria in around 120 BC and they divided it into a number of essentially kingdoms (five, according to Chinese sources).



6. It was Kajula Kadphises who overcame the other YuChee monarchs and united the whole horde to his own will. This is said to have occurred more than a hundred years after the conquest of Bactria by the Yu-chi. It has also been suggested that Kajula's Grandfather married a Greek princess (daughter, niece, possibly of the Hermaus who appears on Kajulas coins). It seems likely from all this that he came to power some time in the first quarter of the first century AD and that he had achieved the unification of the Yu-chi by about 40 AD.



7. At this time that the Kushan kings overran northern India. They conquered the Indus valley, which had previously been in the hands of Parthian kings.



8. The Kushans ruled until 363 AD. But they started declining after the death of Vasudeva in 225 AD. During this time (225-363 AD) The other Yuchee tribes started inclining....



9. The three dynasties (Yuchees by origin) that followed the Kushans were, the Kushanshahs, Lesser Kushans and Kidarites.



10. The Kidarites or chionites were also called Red-Huns.



11. The Kidarites tried very hard to establish themselves as the successors of the Kushan Empire; they are called Kushan and Yu-chi by Western and eastern sources; they issued coins that copied those of the Sasanians, the Kushanshahs and the last Kushan kings. They failed to achieve a revival of the Kushan Empire. Though they conquered the regions and united them, for the last time, under a single government their empire was transient and superficial. The Kidarite Empire never matched the artistic or urban success of the Kushans. And at the end of the fifth century the Kidarites were overwhelmed by the Hephalite.



12. There is a striking resemblance in The Deformed Heads of the early Yu-chees and Hephthalite kings on their coinage.



13. Also see the name of the Hepthalite Kings were:



Tourman Akhsunvar (420 - 470)

Tourman (496 - 502)

Mihirakula (502 - 530)



The name Touman is similar as the king of Hsiung-Nu...Which Shows that the hepthalites had the Yuchee origin...



14. Due to their yuchee origin they were quickly assimilated into north indian population as hindu (or Bodh) kshatriyas without any hassle.



So here we can say that Hepthalites were a group of Yuchees (same as Kushans and Kidarites) who tried to settle down at the remenants of their ancestors when drove out from Bactria by Kok-Turks. But they were mistaken as Huns by local Indians.

Another very very important link for you:

The ruling seat of Epthalites was Sakala (modern Sialkot in paksitan). Tourman-2 was killed by Gupta ruler Bhanugupta in 510 AD. An inscription found at Mandsor records some construction and donation by one DUTTABHATTA***, son of Vayuraksh*ta (Served long as the Commander-in-Chief or SENAPATI**** of Gupta Rulers) was the commander-in-chief of Prabhakarvardhana (contemporary Gupta Ruler) in this campaign where many other Indian Princes (Gurjar Jayabhatta-4 and chalukya ruler Pulkeshin) made a joint attack over the Epthalites. In this decisive fight all the ‘White Huna’ chiefs were slaughtered and the army left was assimilated into Gurjars
from:
www.worldhistoria.com/origin-of-gurjarpratihars-of-india-6th11th-ce_topic128102.html

books.google.co.in/books?id=LPsvytmN3mUC&pg=PA310&lpg=PA310&dq=javula+huns&source=bl&ots=fRvcp4MhiB&sig=bQbqLvQ1tg_nYwR6o5jw02UU-QM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dIDdVIy2K9eJuATKrIHoBQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=javula%20huns&f=false

Regards

[humgujjar]

You're exactly right Ashok Bhai, just as the Indian honorific titles of Raja, Sardar, and Chaudhary can be taken by anyone who can afford to take them, the central Asian honorific titles like Hun, Turk, and Shah were taken by the Gujjars who settled in that region, and came to be known as Yuezhi. As a living example, the Sikhs, who call themselves Sardar, were actually bitter opponents of the Persians, but they still ended up using a purely Persian honorific title, i.e. Sardar.

Gujjars who had taken Shaka, Turk, and Huna titles, are wrongfully termed as Hepthalites by the historians, there was no Huna invasion in India, the Hunas that came to India were Gujjars bearing Huna titles.
It has been a tendency among the foreign historians to portray the ancient Indians as timid and non-warlike people, who were easily conquered. Due to the Brahmins, who in order to earn a few bucks, have always slavishly downgraded the history of their own people to please their masters. So much so that it took some serious research on the part of some sincere British historians to "decode" that the ancient province called Gurjara-Desa or Gurjara-Ratta was actually named after the Gurjaras! Or that the Gurjara-Pratiharas were not Rajputs from Gurjara provinve, but actual Gurjaras, who were using their family name as prefix to their dynastic name, Pratihara.

The truth is that while the Central-Asian lands were just minor nomad kingdoms fighting for pasture lands, India was the land of lavish thrones, the stories of which always lured the plundering hearts of these far away nomads. To believe that such a rich and intelectually advanced land, India, was not able to erect an army worth fighting these feeble nomad-warriors is absurdity of crazy dimensions. Actually, the Europeans cant phanthom the fact that Europe fell to these nomads readily but India did not, so they try their level best to put India down as a weak opponent as well. It is true that eventually India did fall to the likes of Arabs, Afghans, and Mughals, but after centuries of external and internal fighting, the resilience which the proud and warrior people of India showed to it's invaders has been buried in ground by the Brahmins of the slavery period. The slave Brahmins readily slept in the arms of there masters and did exactly what was asked of them, which was to destroy the "pride" of Sindhu Civilization (Hindu Civilization).
I know you know this information already, but I am mostly writing this for the Gujjars who read this forum to learn about the their history and dont know it yet, so dont get me wrong. And thanks for the post, it was informative as always!

Best regards!

[aps]

Feb 13, 2015 10:12:19 GMT 5.5 Ashok Harsana said:

Dear Hum Gujjar and AP Bhaisahab,

Yasodharman belonged to Aulikara family of Gurjars. Mihigul was defeated by the association of Baladitya (Later Guptas) and his 3 Commanders namely Yasodharman, Jayabhatta and Duttabhatta (who was called Dudda-1 the first among the Pratihar lineage ). Jayabhatta and Duttabhatta were probably from same family and this family later ruled Bhinmal during Harsha's period. They were Chap Gurjars without any doubt.
/quote]


Dear Ashok,
You are again propagating mis-information which is written by some barking dogs to glorify Guptas and dis-honouring the invincible Gurjaras.
If you are confident, please furnish with the original information about your claims of
1. Yasodharman belonged to Aulikara family of Gurjars.
2. Dadda was Pratihara and not Parmar. Don't refer to the information written by RC Majumdar who was a barking dog.
3. Show me inscriptional evidence that Dadda existed in 7th. century and not in 4th. century as I have written many times.
4. Who was Baladitya? How this character was fabricated?
Please don't provide the secondary information based on faulty assertions or assumptions.
Regards.
AP Singh

[Ashok Harsana]

Hello AP Bhaisahab,

First of all I am not relying on writings of any other historian, I have deduced these facts from the inscriptions available on internet:

Following is the point wise reply in order of your questions:
1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aulikaras
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandsaur#Aulikaras_of_Dashapura

The Risthal stone slab inscription discovered in 1983 has brought to light another Aulikara dynasty, which comprised the following kings in the order of succession: Drumavardhana, Jayavardhana Ajitavardhana, Vibhishanavardhana, Rajyavardhana and Prakashadharma. After Parakshadharma, the ruler of Mandsaur was Yashodharma, who is identified with Vishnuvardhana, who erected a pillar of victory at Bayana due to which Bayana’s name became Vijaygarh. In all probabilities, he was the son and immediate successor of Prakashadharma. Yashodharma Vishnuvardhana assumed the title of Samrat after he occupied the territories of Bandhuvarma. It is also mentioned that Yashodharma Vishnuvardhana had assumed the title of ‘Maharajadhiraja’ or Emperor.

2 & 3. The Mandsor inscriptions of Baukka and Ghatiyala inscription of Kakkuka clearly states the fact that Dadda was the 4th son of Harishchandra (who was mistakenly called a Brahmin). This Harishcandra or Mandor was contemporary to Yasodharman. It means Dadda was the first in line of Pratihars and he existed in 6th centuty AD.

4.This Baladitya is not be confused with the Narasimhagupta Baladitya (who ruled in last quarter of 5th century) of the main Gupta lineage, I specifically wrote the phrase Later Guptas. It was actually "Bhanugupta" Baladitya. After his fall in around 533 AD, Yasodharman claimed independence and assumed the title of Maharajadhiraja.

www.cristoraul.com/ENGLISH/readinghall/UniversalHistory/INDIA/Gupta_Dynasty/6-GLORY.html

It says:
The words, sa eva, in Daksa's inscription seem to confirm his supposition. At any rate, two things are absolutely certain: Firstly that Yasodharman's date is about 533-34 AD; and secondly that before 533 AD and after 526 AD, Malwa and Western India were under the governorship of Dharnatdosa, who recognized Yasodharman Visnuvardhana as his sovereign lord. There is no earlier reference to Yasodharman anywhere. This fact indicates that he himself founded a new empire, sometime before 533 AD. After the decline of the Gupta empire, the need was felt of reviving and reconstituting an all-India empire. Yasodharman claims to have achieved this feat, by uniting under him the parts of the country which the Gupta sovereigns could not reach (south?) and also the parts which the Huns could not reach (east). The inscription of Visnuvardhana, may also suggest, according to Jayaswal, that Yasodharman Visnuvardhana was the very first ruler of his dynasty.

I hope it clears some doubts.
Regards