Aitihya 2015 VoL-VI, ISSUE-1, 2015Layoutaitihyatheheritage.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Aitihya-Vol.-VI-Issu… · the Rajbanshis living in Meghalaya also veer around the nomenclature

‹øÓ¬˝√√…The Heritage

Aitihya SamsthaKahilipara Colony, P.O. Binova Nagar

Guwahati- 781018, AssamIndia

Multi-lingual Research Journalon

Indology

Volume-VI, Issue-1, 2015

ISSN 2229-5399THE HERITAGE

‹øÓ¬˝√√… The Heritage Vol-VI, Issue-1, 2015

CONTENTS

ENGLISH SECTION

Revisiting the Rajbanshi Identity

Baniprasanna Misra 7-22

Causative Constructions of Sanskrit Language :A Note on Linguistic Studies of West

Vishav Bandhu 23-32

Revisiting a Lost Relationship : Envisioning Future

Connectivity Between Assam and Bangladesh

Abu Nasar Saied Ahmed 33-46

Multilingualism in Indian Literature : A PraxisThrough MT Based Reading Problems and Challenges

Manan Kumar Mandal 47-56

¬ı±—˘± ø¬ıˆ¬±· ¬Œ¸Ã¬ı˛ ¬ıÚ±˜ ‰¬±f ¸—¶‘®øÓ¬¬ı˛ ¸—‚±Ó¬ – õ∂Ô˜ ¬Û¬ı« ñ Δ¬ıø√fl¡ ˚≈·

’˜À˘μ≈ ‰¬Sê¬ıÓ¬œ« 59-73

¬¬ı±—˘± ¸±ø˝√√ÀÓ¬…¬ı˛ ’±ø√˚≈· – ¸ÀÓ¬…¬ı˛ ’Ú≈¸g±Ú’ø˘ˆ¬± √±é¬œ 74-80

Î¬◊øÚ˙ ˙Ó¬Àfl¡¬ı˛ ’¸À˜ ’¬ı±„√√±ø˘À√¬ı˛ ¬ı±—˘±‰¬‰«¬± – õ∂Ô˜ ¬Û¬ı«õ∂¸”Ú ¬ı˜«Ú 81-96

’¸˜œ˚˛± ø¬ıˆ¬±·

ˆ¬±1Ó¬œ˚˛ Î¬◊¬ÛÚ…±¸1 √õ∂±1y√Ì-fl¬Ô±Ó¬ ’¸˜œ˚˛± Î¬◊¬ÛÚ…±¸1 ¶ö±Ú¸œ˜±ôL√ ±¸ 99-110

Úœ˘˜øÌ Ù≈¬fl¡Ú1 fl¡±¬ı…øÚø˜«øÓ¬Ó¬ ø‰¬Sø˙ä1 ø¬ı˜”Ó¬«Ó¬± – ¤fl¡ ’Ò…˚˛Ú‘̃≈√˘ ˙ «̃± 111-120

’1n∏Ì ˙˜«±1 ë¿øÚ¬ı±1Ì ˆ¬A±‰¬±˚«í – ¤øÈ¬ ˜Ú–¸˜œé¬±Rfl¡ ’Ò…˚˛Úø˘ø¬Ûfl¡± Ó¬±˘≈fl¡√±1, Î¬±– Ê√˚˛ôL √±¸ 121-129

‹øÓ¬˝√√… The Heritage Vol-VI, Issue-1, 2015

Dolyatra Issue(March–April)

Published by Dr. Pannalal Goswamion behalf of Aitihya Samstha, Kahilipara Colony, Guwahati-18

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in the articlespublished in this journal are the opinions

of the authors. The members of theEditorial Board or Publisher of

‹øÓ¬˝√√…-The Heritageare in no way responsible for the opinions

expressed by the authors or theconclusions deduced by them.

ENGLISH SECTION


Vol-VI, Issue-1, 2015


© Aitihya Samstha Vol.VI, Issue -1, 2015pp 7-22

REVISITING THE RAJBANSHI IDENTITY

Baniprasanna MisraCentre for Himalayan Studies, North-Bengal University, Siliguri, West Bengal.

Revisiting the Rajbanshi Identity

Baniprasanna Misra 7-22

Causative Constructions of Sanskrit Language :A Note on Linguistic Studies of West

Vishav Bandhu 23-32

Revisiting a Lost Relationship : Envisioning Future

Connectivity Between Assam and Bangladesh

Abu Nasar Saied Ahmed 33-46

Multilingualism in Indian Literature : A PraxisThrough MT Based Reading Problems and Challenges

Manan Kumar Mandal 47-56

‹øÓ¬˝√√… The Heritage, Vol.VI, Issue-1, 2015

ABSTRACT : The Rajbanshis constitute a large community in eastern India spreadmainly over northern Bengal and western Assam. The scholars and activists from bothwithin and outside the community have long displayed their keen interest for variousreasons in discovering the historical roots of their distinct identity. It is usuallybelieved that the identity and status of the community became a problem only after theCensus operations had begun in late nineteenth century India, when the communityhappened to be listed in the company of 'Koch' that was recognized as a tribe. Thescholars also unanimously agree that the Kshatriya Movement of the Rajbanshis wasintended to correct this mistake. Here, we find instead that the schism developinggradually from early nineteenth century onwards between members of the communityhaving royal linkages on the one hand and the lay commoners on the other was themore important determinant of the Kshatriya Movement which itself had two strains,not one, and both continued along two different courses.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Rajbanshis, or the Koch-Rajbanshis –the latter term being more popular in Assam,constitute an important category of peoplespread over north-east India but especially inthe contiguous areas of north Bengal andwestern Assam.1 The political boundaries of thepresent should not make us forget that theRajbanshis are indigenous inhabitants also ofthe erstwhile Rangpur district and other adjacentareas of present day Bangladesh, and parts ofeastern Bihar and Nepal Terai. In short, theyappear to be concentrated during the historicalperiod between 25° and 26°30′ North latitudes,and 88° and 92° East longitudes (leaving the

higher altitudes of Meghalaya but including thelow-lying bordering areas of the Garo hills).2 Itmay also be mentioned that the Rajbanshi orKoch-Rajbanshi is an ethnic nomenclature thathas been enriched over time through accretionof members from other communities.

The areas inhabited by the Rajbanshicommunity were by and large included in thepast within the kingdom of Kamatapur, whichhad frontiers on all sides without rigorousboundaries, over the ruins of which at a laterdate emerged Koch Behar as a mighty kingdomchallenging the Ahom supremacy to the furthereast. The discord over succession led to splitof the kingdom into two parts - the senior branchof the royal family continued to rule over the

‹øÓ¬˝√√… The Heritage, Vol.V, Issue-2, 2014

8 ‹øÓ¬˝√√… The Heritage, Vol.VI, Issue-1, 2015 ‹øÓ¬˝√√… The Heritage, Vol.VI, Issue-1, 2015 9

Baniprasanna Misra Revisiting the Rajbanshi Identity

western part from Koch Behar, while the juniorbranch to the east of river Sankosh was knownas Koch Hajo. The expansion of the Ahoms andthe intervention of the Mughals in their affairsdestroyed the glory of Koch Hajo to all intentsand purposes. These caused split of Koch Hajointo several principalities, with varying degreesof control under the Ahoms over some of them.The Mughal governors from Dacca alsoincorporated a large part of Koch Hajo intoBengal. As far as Koch Behar was concerned,the Moghuls and the Bhutanese occasionallymade inroads over the same but the kingdomcontinued to flourish and end up under theBritish rule as a princely state with a 13-gunsalute

In West Bengal, at present, the 'Rajbanshis'and the 'Koches' are recognized by the stateas two independent 'Scheduled Castes'. InAssam, on the other hand, the 'Koch-Rajbanshis' are jointly enlisted as one singleentity under the 'Other Backward Classes'category,3 and there are no scheduled groupsusing the exclusive appellation of either Kochor Rajbanshi. In Meghalaya, 'Koch' takensingly without its correlate is howeverrecognized as a 'Scheduled Tribe', but 'Koch-Rajbanshi' or simply 'Rajbanshi' happens tobe an unknown category there. And, thus thecircle is complete. The status of these cognateset of people varies from scheduled tribe toscheduled caste to Other Backward Classesor OBC, from place to place.

Here, it will not be out of place to say afew words about the Rabhas. Despite thediversity of official approach towards thestatus of Koch and Rajbanshis, it is curious tonote that majority of the Rabhas identifythemselves with the Koch, and at the same timethey are uniformly recognized as a separateScheduled Tribe in all the three States ofAssam (including the Bodoland TerritorialAreas District but excluding the Autonomous

Districts of Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao),Meghalaya, and West Bengal. Thus, Koch andRabha, though not held to be identical, areboth recognized as scheduled tribes inMeghalaya. Notwithstanding the claim madeby Rabhas, the Koch however considerthemselves in parts of Meghalaya to besuperior to the Rabhas, though in West Bengaland areas to the north of the Brahmaputra inerstwhile Goalpara district of Assam, theRabhas, while enjoying their scheduled tribestatus, continue to consider themselves as abranch of the Koch people.

During the medieval period a considerableamount of both sacred as also secular literaturewas written in the language variously calledKamarupi or Kamatapuri, the local languageof this region that is claimed by the Rajbanshisto be their own. However, in course of time,the Rajbanshis and others have been drawnlargely within the fold of modern-day Bengaliand Assamese. This has happened because ofseveral reasons one being the fact that they livewithin the politically demarcated state-boundaries where these latter languages areofficially recognized within their respectiveterritories.

All these factors have simultaneouslycontributed to a crisis of identity for theRajbanshi people. Various responses are beingobserved during the contemporary periodamong them to meet the challenges for thefuture. In Assam some of them are demandingthe Scheduled Tribe status, while in bothAssam and West Bengal some others are tryingto mobilize public opinion in favour ofcreating a greater State of Kamatapur orCooch Behar. Attempts are also being madeto revive Kamatapuri/Kamarupi language andget official recognition for its use. At the sametime there are cases particularly in the fringeareas of Assam where individual Rajbanshissometimes try to pass on, and enlist themselves

as Rabha if the situation so permits. Sometimesthe Rajbanshis living in Meghalaya also veeraround the nomenclature - Koch. But sinceRabha has a wider circulation as a recognizedtribe in all the three states of West Bengal,Assam and Meghalaya, the nomenclatureRabha enjoys a premium at present over Koch.Such a syndrome also exists elsewhere in thenorth-east, as a further example of which onemay cite the case of some of the Kuki groupslike the Moyans or Monsangs in Manipurshifting from Kuki to Naga identity in an effortthat may possibly be explained in terms ofpolitical pragmatism.

In this presentation the existentialencounter with the present leads us toundertake a critical re-examination of thedynamics of the Rajbanshi identity formationin history, particularly during the British rule.The Kshatriya movement of the Rajbanshis,aimed at differentiating them from the Kochduring its origin, is proposed to be re-examinedby drawing a wider canvas of the historicalprocess. In the next section, we shall presentthose facts of history that would help us toappreciate the circumstances under which thecommunity was led to enquire about its ownidentity, and become truly self-conscious.Through what process and by the use of whatarguments they had once tried to resolve theissue will be discussed in the penultimate part.Finally we shall sum up the discussion by wayof a brief conclusion.

II. CONTESTATION

One of the earliest reference to theRajbanshi people is available from a balladascribed to a folk poet named Ratiram whohad lived under the oppressive rule ofDebisingha, the Ijaradar of Dinajpur andRangpur districts in Bengal during the rule ofWarren Hastings(1772-1785) the firstGovernor General of India under the East India

Company. Ratiram said,4

¬ı˛ÀÌ ˆ¬e ø√˚˛± Œ˜±¬ı˛± ¤À√À˙ ’±˝◊√√¸±øÂ√ˆ¬e é¬Sœ ¬ı˛±Ê√¬ı—˙œ ¤˝◊√√ Ú±À˜ ’±øÂ

It is noticeable that this was the emicperception during as early as the last quarter ofthe eighteenth century. The descriptive termslike 'Bhanga Kshatriya' and 'Rajbanshi' werealready in vogue at that time. But, these epithetsare not to be found in the older Persian records,or in the foreign accounts, or in any of thedynastic epigraph of the time.5 The terms arealso conspicuous by their absence in theDarrang Raj Bangshabali (c.1798) that wascomposed at around the same time on thenorthern banks of the Brahmaputra in Assam.

In the course of his survey conducted during1807-14 in what can be identified as theKamrup-Kamata region, Francis Buchanan hadobserved that the title of Rajbangshi was beingapplied for themselves by a large number ofKoch people on the basis of (a) their 'pretendeddescent' from the Kshatriyas fleeing fromfurther west to Kamrup and the adjacentterritories to escape from the wrath ofParashuram, as per the accounts furnished inthe Yogini Tantra, and (b) also on the basis oftheir adopting the Hindu religion, andrelinquishing the impure practices. He alsofound that "the other rude tribes…such as Mechand Hajong, who have followed their examplein religion, have assumed the same title.''6 It wasfound that the Great Tradition of the Hindushad provided a reference point for the Kochpeople, while the Koches acted as the referencegroup for the Meches and others during as earlyas the first decade of the nineteenth century innorth Bengal and adjacent regions.

Montgomery Martin(1838), who hadrevised the accounts furnished by FrancisBuchanan, found that the Rajbanshi, Koch andPaliya people in Dinajpur district "considerthemselves as distinct", but, he said, "it is

contended by many that they were originallythe same, and have now separated inconsequence of some of them having adopted,more than others, those manners which Hindusconsider pure", though "in Dinajpoor, even thehighest of them, the Rajbongsis, are reckoneda very impure tribe: but in the countries thatare subject to their princes an assertion of thisnature would be very imprudent."7 Martinhimself was inclined to believe that theRajbanshis were initially enlisted from amongthose families of the Koch, who were "relatedto their princes such as the Rajas of Vihar, Vijni,and Dorong".8

The term Rajbanshi appears to have enteredthe vocabulary both as an endo-ethnonym asalso an exo-ethnonym through the passage oftime. It is possible that at first the royal lineageof the different Koch kings were labeled as theRajbanshis. The equivalence of Koch andRajbanshi was a material reality for themembers of the royal lineage. The others wereled into it through the cunning of history thathas been, as it were, end-neutral in use ofarguments suffering from the fallacy ofundistributed middle.

This would be made clearer if we look intothe following reports. Writing during 1807-14about the Raja of Darrang who was "by far themost considerable, and most respected" inAssam, Francis Buchanan Hamilton had madea very significant observation. He said, "InAssam he is called a Koch, the title ofRajbongsi not being acknowledged."9 TheKoch Kings of Darrang were subservient(Ô±ø¬ÛÓ¬± ¸ø=Ó¬±) to the Ahoms who were theiroverlords. As such the limit upon the use ofthe term Rajbanshi within the jurisdiction ofAhom Kingdom appears understandable. Butin a report appearing in a Bengali newspaperin 1839, the royal house of Cooch Behar, whichwas the parent stock of Darrang royal family,was easily identified as belonging to the

Rajbanshi community. It cannot therefore be awild surmise that the use of the term Rajbanshihad first begun with the Koch Behar royalhouse. Like the term Rajput it could graduallyacquire a general currency and become areference point for others to emulate. The reportwhich we spoke of ran as follows :10

’±˜¬ı˛± øÚø(Ó¬ ¸•§±√ Ê√±øÚ˚˛± õ∂fl¡±˙ fl¡ø¬ı˛ÀÓ¬øÂ√ Œ˚Œfl¡“±‰¬À¬ı˝√√±À¬ı˛¬ı˛ ˜˝√√±¬ı˛±Ê√ ˝√√À¬ı˛f Ú±¬ı˛±˚˛Ì ˆ¬”¬Û 30Œ˜ [1839‡‘.] Ó¬±ø¬ı˛À‡ fl¡±˘õ∂±5 ̋ √√˝◊√√˚˛±ÀÂ√Úº ¬ı˛±Ê√¬ı—˙œ˚˛ Ú±À˜ ¤fl¡ õ∂ø¸XÊ√±Ó¬œ ’±ÀÂ√º ¤˝◊√√ ¬ı˛±Ê√± Œ¸˝◊√√ Ê√±Ó¬œ˚˛ ˜Ú≈¯∏…º ˝◊√√øÚ ø˙À¬ı±¬Û±¸fl¡øÂ√À˘Ú Ò•ú« fl¡•ú« Ó¬ÀLa¬ı˛ ˜Ó¬ fl¡ø¬ı˛ÀÓ¬Úº Œfl¡¬ı˘ ø˙¬ı¬Û”Ê√±ø˙¬ı¶ö±¬ÛÀÚÀÓ¬ ◊̋√√ Œ¬ı±Ò ̋ √√̊ ˛ ¬ı˛±Ê√± ø √̋√μ≈ ÚÓ≈¬¬ı± ’± √̋√±¬ı˛ ø¬ı ∏̄À ˛̊ Ó¬± √̋√±¬ı˛ø˝√√μ≈¬ı˛ ¬ı…¬ı˝√√±¬ı˛ øfl¡Â≈√˝◊√√ øÂ√˘ Ú± ¤¬ı— ø¬ı¬ı±˝√√ fl¡¬ı˛ÀÌÀÓ¬À› Ê√±øÓ¬¬ı˛ø¬ı‰¬±¬ı˛ fl¡ø¬ı˛ÀÓ¬Ú Ú±º Œ˚ Œfl¡±Ú Ê√±øÓ¬¬ı˛ fl¡Ú…± ¸≈μ¬ı˛œ Ê√±øÚÀ˘˝◊√√Ó¬±˝√√±Àfl¡ ø¬ı¬ı±˝√√ fl¡ø¬ı˛ÀÓ¬Úº

The report had appeared in the Bengaliweekly Samachar Darpan, published fromSerampore and edited by the missionary, JohnClark Marshman. Marshman, it is known, wasassisted in his editorial work by a team oflearned Bengali pundits. Notwithstanding thevery useful role played by Samachar Darpanin the cultural awakening of Bengal, the derisivetone of the report needs an explanation. Thishad happened because Koch Behar was as yetonly insufficiently connected to metropolitanCalcutta and was not enlightened by the Bengalrenaissance. But, be whatever it may, it islamentable to note that the paper highlightedwhat it considered to be the failings of the king,but it failed to publicize any of his severalpositive qualities. After about a hundred years,Harendra Narayan has been accorded therecognition long overdue for his literaryactivities :11

˝√√À¬ı˛fÚ±¬ı˛±˚˛ÀÌ¬ı˛ ¬ı˛±Ê√Qfl¡±À˘ Œfl¡±‰¬ø¬ı˝√√±À¬ı˛ ¸±ø˝√√Ó¬…’±À˘±‰¬Ú±¬ı˛ ¤ø˘Ê√±À¬ıÔœ˚˛±Ú ˚≈·º øÓ¬øÚ ¶§˚˛— ¤fl¡Ê√Ú fl¡ø¬ıøÂ√À˘Ú ¤¬ı— ¬ÛøGÓ¬ øÚ ≈̊Mê√ fl¡ø¬ı˛̊ ˛± ̃ √̋√±ˆ¬±¬ı˛Ó¬, ¬ı˛±˜± ˛̊Ì, ø¬ı ≈̄û¬Û≈¬ı˛±Ìõ∂ˆ¬‘øÓ¬ ¬ıUø¬ıÒ ¢∂Lö ˜”˘ ¸—¶‘®Ó¬ ˝√√˝◊√√ÀÓ¬ ¬ı±e±˘± ¬ÛÀ√… ’Ú≈¬ı±ø√Ó¬fl¡¬ı˛±˝◊√√˚˛±øÂ√À˘Úº

A learned critic of the stature of

Sashibhushan Dasgupta declared unequivocallyin 1948 :12

It will not be an exaggeration to say that thereign of Maharaja Harendra Narayan marks achapter in the history of Bengali literature ofthe late eighteenth and early nineteenthcenturies.

But, hundred years earlier, and for a longtime ever since, the history of Bengali literaturehas persisted in doing dis-service to it byremaining oblivious of these contributions.

King Harendranarayan, who belonged to thecommunity of Rajbanshis, so said the obituaryin Samachar Darpan, was ready to marry girlsfrom any caste or community if only they werebeautiful. But the report was misleadingbecause it was exaggerated. We may rememberhere that Biswa Singha, the founder King ofCooch Behar dynasty, is reputed to haveprocured several wives, but he did so only fromroyal families far and wide. But, Biswa Singha'swas an exceptional case because usually, evenwhen multiple marriages were made by someof the Koch Behar kings, they did procurebrides from their own kinsmen. It is known thatMaharaj Man Singha of Jaipur had married thesister of King Lakshminarayan (r.1587-1621),while Pratapa Mallah, the Nepal king hadmarried the sister of Maharaj Prananarayan(r.1626-1665). But these were export of CoochBehar princesses, not importing queensfromoutside. And such exports were made onpolitical grounds when the Koch kings neededmilitary help to fight against their adversaries.We shall come to assess the reasons for thisone-way traffic shortly. But before doing so,let us remember that BiswaSingha's moreillustrious son and successor, King Naranarayanwas not enthusiastic about multiple marriageseven when his wife failed to give birth to anyson till a very late age.Naranarayan had by thenvirtually nominated the child of his youngerbrother Shukladwaj (nee Chilaroy) to be his

successor, and the nomination had to be revisedafter the birth of his own baby.

In his youth Chilaroy became passionatelydrawn to Bhubaneswari, the daughter of RamRai Ata and the niece of Vaishnava reformerSrimanta Sankardev, after a chance look at herfrom a distance. Sankardev at that time wasfleeing from Ahom kingdom after his own son-in-law had been cruelly murdered by the Ahomking for a negligible fault of his. The refugeefamily was heaving a sigh of relief after enteringthe boundaries of a safe and secure Koch Beharstate when they received the marriage proposalfrom the powerful 'Rajbanshi' along with aveiled threat.It was difficult for a 'KayasthaBhuyan' family in distress either to accept orreject the proposal. But Sankardeva in hiswisdom prevailed over everyone to accept theproposal to overcome the crisis, and themarriage was accordingly concluded. Let ushave a glimpse of what had actually happenedfrom two old accounts that are available. Oneof these old documents had the following tosay in this regard :13

Œ˚øÓ¬˚˛± ”√Ó¬ ’±ø˝√√ ’±Ó¬±1 ‚1 fl¡ø1À˘ø˝√√√√, Î¬◊¬Û±˚˛ Ú±¬Û±˝◊√√˙Ç1À√ªÓ¬ Ê√Ú± ◊̋√√ÀÂ√, ëë√±√±, øfl¡ Î¬◊¬Û± ˛̊ fl¡1± ̋ √√í¬ı∑ ŒÂ√±È¬ Œ√ª±ÀÚ’±˜±1 fl¡Ú…±‡±øÚ Ò1±˝◊√√ øÚ¬ıÕ˘ Œ˘±fl¡ ¬ÛÍ¬±˝◊√√ÀÂ√ºíí ¤˝◊√√ fl¡Ô±qøÚ &1n∏Ê√ÀÚ ˜ÚÓ¬ ¬ı1 Œ‡√ fl¡ø1ÀÂ√, ëë1Ê√±1 ˆ¬˚˛ÀÓ¬ ˆ¬±ø·’±ø˝√√À˘“±, ̋ ◊√√˚˛±ÀÓ¬± ’±¬Û√1 ̧ œ˜± Ú±˝◊√√øfl¡˚˛± ̋ √√í˘ºíí Ú±Ú± õ∂fl¡±À1ˆ¬±ø¬ı-ø‰¬øôL ŒÂ√±ª±˘œ ø√¬ıÕ˘Àfl¡ ’Ú≈˜øÓ¬ fl¡ø1ÀÂ√º ¬Û±È¬¬ı±Î¬◊¸œ1¬Û1± Œfl¡±‰¬ø¬ı˝√√±1 ̧ ±Ó¬ø√Ú1 ¬ı±È¬, 1Ê√±˝◊√√ ’±ø˝√√ ø¬ı˚˛± fl¡1±1 øÚ˚˛˜Ú±˝◊√√, ˆ¬”¤û±¸fl¡À˘ øÚÀÊ√ Δ· ø¬ı˚˛± ø√˚˛±› ˘±Ê√1 fl¡Ô± , ’Ó¬¤¬ıÎ¬◊ˆ¬˚˛¬Ûé¬1 ˜œ˜±—¸± ˜ÀÓ¬ ¸S1 ¬Û1± Â√˚˛ø√Ú1, Œfl¡±‰¬À¬ı˝√√±11¬Û1± ¤ø√Ú1 ”√Õ1 1±˜1±˚˛fl≈¡øÍ¬ Ú±À˜ Í¬±˝◊√ √Ó¬ ¬ı±˝√√1 fl¡ø1˜˝√√±¸˜±À1±À˝√√ ˆ¬”ªÀÚù´1œfl¡ ø¬ı˚˛± ø√ÀÂ√º

In another document, the matter wasrepresented as follows : 14

˜˝√√±¬Û≈1n∏¯∏ ¿˜ôL ˙Ç1À√Àª Î¬◊ˆ¬˚˛ fl≈¡˘1 ˜˚«…±√± 1é¬±fl¡ø1¬ıÕ˘ 1±˜1±˚˛fl¡ ¬ı≈Ê√±˝◊√√ fl¡À˘ ëëfl¡Ú…± øÚø√› ¬ı≈ø˘À˘› õ∂¬ı˘1±Ê√¬Û≈1n∏¯∏ Œ˚øÓ¬˚˛± ¬ı˘¬Û”¬ı3«fl¡ øÚ¬ı˝◊√√, Ó¬±1 ¬ı±ø˝√√À1› ˝√√˚˛ÀÓ¬±¸ij±Ú1 ›¬Û1ÀÓ¬± ̋ √√±Ó¬ ø√¬ı ¬Û±À1º ̋ ◊√√Ù¬±À˘ øÚÀÊ√ Δ· 1±Ê√¬ı±1œÓ¬fl¡Ú…± ’¬Û«Ì fl¡1± fl¡Ô±› Ê√øÈ¬˘ fl¡Ô± ’±1n∏ ̆ 7¡¡¡±1 ø¬ı ∏̄̊ ˛º ø˚À √̋√Ó≈¬



distance between the ruler and the ruled. Duringthe first half of the nineteenth century, in 1838to be precise, Montgomery Martin (1838) wasconstrained to comment that in the Rangpurregion, even "the poorer classes of Koch areaffronted at being called by any otherappellation but that of Rajbongsi, although inNepal, Assam and every other part, where theirchiefs have no influence, the two terms areconsidered as synonymous."19 It appearsreasonable to surmise that till the middle of thenineteenth century, the royal house was notparticularly averse to sharing the Rajbanshiidentity with the commoners. At the same time,the epithet Rajbanshi must have servedeminently the purposes of an etic honorificascribed upon the local or desi population bythe later immigrants to this region and, throughthis process, the term earned for itself auniversal place in the vocabulary. The stepstaken by the royalty for socially distancing itselffrom the subject population forced the latter tobe introspective and discover an identityexclusively for itself. After the royal householdwere restrained from sharing this sobriquet'Rajbanshi' with the common folk, the latterwere compelled, so to say, to carve out a nichefor themselves independent of the Koch kings.The studies on the Kshatriya movement of theRajbanshis made in great detail by severalscholars in the recent past would be richer ifonly the perspective is enlarged and viewedfrom different angles as above.

On the heels of modernization ofadministration from particularly the middle ofthe nineteenth century onwards (which was firstinitiated by the British government of Indiafrom above), a large number of immigrantsbegan flocking to the State, graduallydislodging the comparatively ill-equippedindigenous elements who were running the stateapparatus thus far. At the same time, since thedays of Koch Behar becoming a princely statewithin the jurisdiction of British India, the

dependence of the royal family upon themilitary might of their kinsmen for survival wasalso minimized. The 1864-65 Duars Waragainst encroachments made by Bhutan wascarried by the British without any significantcollaboration of Koch Behar. Further, the KochBehar economy which was characterized in thepast by reciprocity and redistribution (a la KarlPolanyi) was gradually being monetized for thepurposes of market exchange during this period.Looked at from a Parsonian framework theremust have occurred some important shifts inthe pattern variables affecting not only the Stateadministration but also the inter-personal socialrelations.

All these factors had contributed slowly andsilently to create a gap between the rulers ofthe state and the subject population. As noticedearlier the Rajgan became distinguished fromthe Rajbanshi possibly as a consequence ofthese several factors. After his marriage withSunitiDevi, Maharaj Nripendra Narayan openlydeclared his faith in the Brahmo religion andjoined the fraternity of Brahmo Samaj ofIndia.20 As a result of this, many well educatedBrahmos from outside the state migrated toKoch Behar and joined the state administrationin various capacities. The name of the state wasofficially declared to be 'Cooch Behar' in 1897ostensibly to bring in uniformity in spelling. InBengali it was spelt henceforth as fl≈¡‰¬ø¬ı˝√√±¬ı˛instead of Œfl¡±‰¬ø¬ı˝√√±¬ı˛ (Koch Behar). It may notbe far-fetched to conclude that the Kochconnection of the state was effectively beingerased by these steps, because the ruling circleswere ill at ease with this nomenclature.

The traditional elites and, together withthem, the local population in general wereestranged and marginalized by all thesereforms. Many aspects of modernization werealso not to the liking of the Brahmins and otherconservative section of the Hindus. However,be whatever it may, the Brahmos, in place of

¬ı1 ˝√√˘ 1±Ê√¬ı—˙œ Œ˘±fl¡ fl¡Ú…± ˝√√˘ fl¡±˚˛¶ö, ·øÓ¬Àfl¡ ≈√Ó¬fl¡ fl¡¬ı± ,’±ø˜ Î¬◊Ê√øÚ ’¸˜1 ¬Û1± 1Ê√±1 ’Ú…±˚˛ fl¡±˚«…Ó¬ Ò•ú«1é¬± fl¡ø1¬ı¬Û1± Ú˝√√í¬ı Œ˚Ú ̂ ¬±ø¬ı ̂ ¬±øÈ¬ 1±Ê√…Õ˘ ’±ø˝√√ ¤ ◊̋√√ Í¬± ◊̋√√ÀÓ¬ ’±ÀÂ√±ø˝√√º... ¤˝◊√√ ¬Û±È¬¬ı±Î¬◊¸œÓ¬ fl¡Ú…± ø¬ı¬ı±˝√√ ø√¬ıÕ˘ ’±˜±1 Œfl¡±ÀÚ± ¸±-¸≈ø¬ıÒ± Ú±˝◊√√ Ó¬Ô±ø¬Û 1±Ê√fl≈¡˜±1fl¡ fl¡Ú…± øÚø√À˘ Ú˝√√˚˛√√ Œ˚øÓ¬˚˛±ø√˚˛± ˝√√¬ıºíí

This marriage had happened sometimeduring c.1550. It is remarkable that the royalfamily was identified as belonging to the casteof 'Rajbanshi' in the extant Assamese recordswhich were composed not too long after theactual event. Centuries later, Samachar Darpandid not do something unusual; when it cast itslook upon the Rajbanshis with a jaundiced eye,it was following only the traditional foot-steps

More than three centuries afterwards, in theyear 1878, when the marriage of KingNripendranarayana was settled with SunitiDevi, daughter of Keshav Chandra Sen, it notonly raised many eyebrows but also createdschism among the followers of Keshav Sen inthe Brahmo Samaj. But it is important to notethat a Bengali 'Vaidya' bride being handed overto a 'Rajbanshi' groom was not the issue here.Controversy was caused because (1) both thegroom and the bride had not attained the legallystipulated minimum marriage age, and (2) theBrahmo marriage rituals were not being strictlyadhered to.15

It will be instructive to refer to this episodein brief. From after the Queen's Declaration in1858, the government of British India becameparticularly concerned about the modernizationof Koch Behar administration. Efforts weremade by Mr. Houghton, the recently appointedCommissioner for Koch Behar, to educateNripendra Narayan along modern lines, andeven send him abroad for some time. TheBritish advisors also persuaded the localmanagers of the royal household to find anaccomplished bride for the young king inpreference over girls available from familiesof local elites - both consanguine and affine.

Accordingly, contacts were made and a fewproposals were obtained from Kshatriyafamilies in north India and even from familieswith royal connections from as far off asMadras. But such efforts were fruitless becausethe negotiations broke down mid-way due toconfusion regarding the exact position of theKoch community in caste hierarchy.Considerations of caste and community hadthus prevented marriage of Nripendranarayanwith brides from Kshatriya families outside thestate. Under such circumstances, Jadav ChandraChakraborti who was a magistrate with theKoch Behar administration, and who had goodcontacts at Calcutta, was entrusted with the taskof finding a suitable bride from respectablefamilies.16 And, it is thus that the marriage ofthe young king with Suniti Devi was settled.

At that time, the selection of brides for theroyal family was restricted, as has been thepractice for long, to those available from amongthe respected families within the circle ofkinship in the neighbourhood.17 The affine ofthe royal family used to earn the sobriquet Karjior Ishor, and they were endowed with variousgrants and benefits, big or small, in return. But,beginning with the marriage of MaharajNripendranarayan, it became a matter of policyto encourage the marriage of royal familymembers in educated and respected lineagesfar outside the narrow confines of thecommunity or the State. Nriprndranarayan'smarriage with Suniti Devi was the greatwatershed event in this regard.

From the last quarter of the nineteenthcentury, the kinsmen of the royal house ofCooch Behar - both consanguineous and affine,came to be officially designated as 'Rajgan( ¬ı ˛ ±Ê√·Ì)' in place of the older epithet'Rajbanshi'(¬ı˛±Ê√¬ı—˙œ).18 The ordinary subjects ofthe State were henceforth required to addressthem as Saheb. In all probability this stratagemwas devised to maintain the requisite social



the Brahmins, enjoyed a heyday between 1878and 1913, the latter day signifying the accessionof Maharaja Jitendranarayan(r.1913-1922) tothe throne after his marriage with Indira Devi,the princess of Baroda. There was a certainrevival of Brahminism after this date becauseof this marital alliance. But Indira Devi, evenwhile she was a Hindu unlike her predecessorSuniti Devi and her consort, was too modernfor her times in personal behaviour and socialmanners, attracting adverse criticism from thecommunity leaders. Panchanan Barmaventilated his disapproval of the Queen'sconduct in the public sphere, and hence he wasexpelled from Cooch Behar state by a royalorder. His expulsion hastened the crystallizationof the Kshatriya movement under hisleadership, with Rangpur outside the statebecoming his headquarters, and the movementwas intended for those commoners who wantedto distance themselves from the royal house.The irony of the situation thus became manifestwhen together with the overall modernization,the illustrious Thakur Panchanan Barma, thefirst ever from among the Rajbanshi communityof Bengal, Assam and elsewhere to go formodern education and acquire an M.A., B.L.degree from the Calcutta University, could findno place in his own state, and was turned out.

III. RESOLUTION

The Koch royal family became self-conscious, and accordingly was led to anenquiry into its own origin and developmentduring the reign of Maharaj Harendranarayan(1783-1839). For an answer, it fell back onbasically two important sources, (a) KalikaPurana (dateable to 10th to 12th centuries), andthe (b) Yogini Tantra, (dateable to latter part of16th century),21 and utilized wherever necessarythe comparatively less hallowed documents,viz.(c) Kamarupar Buranji (compiled duringthe latter part of 17th century), and (d) Darrang

Raj Bangshavali (dateable to closing years of18th century). Let us faithfully summarize therelevant contents of the first two Sanskritscriptures because both of them had providedthe primary source so to say for resolving theidentity question.

The Kalika Purana was eloquent about thevirtues accruing from a visit to the sacredSivalinga named Jalpeesha located in the north-west corner of Kamarupa, by the side of theholy river Jatoda originating in the Himalayas.A section of the Kshatriyas fleeing from thefright of Jamadagnya in the past, it said, hadsurrendered to the Lord Jalpeesha for theirsecurity and welfare. In course of time, theseKshatriyas turned into 'Mlechha', adopted aMlechha language, but they continued steadfastin their devotion to Lord Jalpeesha.22

¡Ê◊ŒÇãÿ÷ÿÊjËÃÊ— ˇÊÁòÊÿÊ— ¬Ífl¸◊fl ÿ–ê‹ë¿U¿UkÊãÿÈ¬ÊŒÊÿ ¡À¬Ë‡Ê¢ ‡Ê⁄UáÊ¢ ªÃÊ—––Ã ê‹ë¿UflÊø— ‚ÃÃ◊Êÿ¸flÊøp ‚fl¸ŒÊ–¡À¬Ë‡Ê— ‚fl◊ÊŸÊSÃ ªÙ¬ÊÿÁãÃ ø Ã¢ „U⁄¢U––

- KalikaPuranam, 77/30-31

A few centuries thereafter was composedthe Yogini Tantra. The Yogini Tantra narratedthat in the country named Koch (∑§ÙøÊÅÿÊŸ ø Œ‡Êø ÿÙÁŸªÃ̧‚◊Ë¬Ã—) Lord Siva had showeredfavoursupon a Mlechha woman named Revati. Throughtheir union was born Benu Singha who not onlybecame a King,but also defeated theSaumara(i.e. the Ahoms) and the Gaua (i.e.the Bengal kings/Nawabs) in battles.BenuSingha had a large number of warrior sonsknown as Kuvacha, who were nonethelessreligiously-minded. And, his descendents weredestined to rule over Kama(rupa) and reinstatethe goddess Kamakhya, who had been sufferingfrom neglect due to a curse heaped on her bythe sage Vasistha, to her glory.23

Compared to the Kalika Purana or theYogini Tantra, the Darrang Raj Bangshavalimay be held to be a modern day account of the

fortunes of the Koch-Rajbanshis. TheBangshavali described how Parashurama hadvowed in the ancient past to exterminate theKshatriyas because they had earlier humiliatedand killed his father, the sage Jamadagni, overthe issue of forcible abduction of the divine cow,Kamadhenu. During this encounter twelveKshatriya princes, it said, had allegedly fled intothe wilds of Chiknabari(in present dayBodoland Territorial Areas District of Assam)where they lived and dined with the Mech, andalso inter-married with them to survive. In duecourse twelve Mech warrior sons, headed byHariya Mondol, were born to them. Hariyahimself had two wives - Hira and Jira. Throughthe grace of Lord Siva, a son named Bishu wasborn to Hira. Hariya begot another son namedSishu through his wife Jira. After he had attainedadulthood, Bishu defeated the Bhuyans oneafter the other, and established himself as KingBiswaSingha with his capital at Behar. At hiscoronation the Kuvacha and the Kacharisrejoiced. The Mech compatriots of Hariya wereresettled by the King as Karjis who turned tobe the affines of the royal family. After his waragainst the Ahoms, BiswaSingha returned to hiscapital and offered worship to the GoddessKamateswari not far from Deviganj, and alsoto Lord Siva at Baneswar. 24

During the reign of Maharaj Harendra-narayan, Munshi Jainath Ghosh was entrustedwith the task of compiling a history of the KochBehar kings. Jainath began sometime during1823-33, visited Assam to collect whatevermaterial were available from that end, andcompleted his work in 1845.25 From his writingone can make out that he was fully familiar withDarrang Raj Bangshavali and KamaruparBuranji. Incidentally, Kamarupar Buranji was,according to S. K. Bhuyan, collated and"compiled beyond doubt during the latter partof the seventeenth century during thecontinuance or immediately after the cessationof the hostilities with the Moguls, and as such

it offers us a unique example of the Assameseprose style of the period". Jainath howeverrefrained from citing vernacular sourcematerials, and based all his creative conjecturesfor writing the early history of Koch Behar uponthe sacred authority of the Yogini Tantra, evenif some of his interpolations were at variancewith what were exactly available from thatsource. For example he wrote on the allegedauthority of the Yogini Tantra that Lord Sivahad narrated the following account to hisconsort, though the sacred text was silent aboutit :26

¸Ó¬… ≈̊À· ̊ ˜√ø¢ü ̃ ≈øÚ¬ı˛ ¬Û≈S ¬Û¬ı˛q¬ı˛±˜ñ ¬Û‘øÔ¬ıœ øÚ–é¬øS ˛̊fl¡ø¬ı˛À˘ñ Œfl¡˝√√2√ õ∂±Ì ̂ ¬À ˛̊ ¬Û˘± ◊̋√√ ˛̊± fl¡±˜¬ÛœÀÍ¬ ’±ø¸ ˛̊± ’±‰¬±¬ı˛w©Ü ˝√√˝◊√√˚˛± ¸ÀÇ±ø‰¬Ó¬ ˜ÀÚ Ô±øfl¡˘, Œfl¡˝√√ Ó¬±˝√√±ø√·Àfl¡ øÊ√:±¸±fl¡ø¬ı˛À˘ Ó¬±˝√√±¬ı˛± ¬ıø˘Ó¬ ’±˜¬ı˛± ë¸—ÀÇ±‰¬í [Ø] ¤˝◊√√¬ı˛+À¬Û Œfl¡±‰¬Ê√±øÓ¬¬ı˛ Î¬◊»¬ÛøM√√º Œfl¡±‰¬ ¬ıÌ« ¸Ç¬ı˛ ÚÀ˝√√º õ∂Ô˜Ó¬– é¬øS˚˛ ˝√√˝◊√√˚˛±˚≈ÀX ¬Û˘±˚˛Ú, ø¡ZÓ¬œ˚˛Ó¬– ’±‰¬±¬ı˛ w©ÜÓ¬±, ¤˝◊√√ Ê√Ú… ˝√√œÚÓ¬± õ∂±5˝√√ ◊̋√√ ˛̊±ÀÂ√, ÚÓ≈¬¬ı± Œfl¡±‰¬ ̋ √√œÚÊ√±øÓ¬ ÚÀ˝√√, ¬Û¬ı˛c ø¡ZÓ¬œ ˛̊ ¬ıÌ« é¬øS ˛̊̋ ◊√√¬ıÀÈ¬º

A few years after, in 1865, the son of Jainath,Ananda Chandra Ghosh, who also adored likehis father a high post under the Koch Behar raj,wrote another history of the State in Bengali inwhich he repeated what his father had saidearlier. Since the Koch people were fugitiveKshatriyas fleeing from the reach of the sageParashuram, he wrote -27 “¬⁄U‡ÊÈ⁄UÊ◊ ÷ÿÊÃ˜ ˇÊòÊË‚æU∑§ÙøÊÃ˜ ∑§Ùø◊ÍëÿÃ”– The Sanskrit rendering ofwhat his father had said earlier was his own.Anandachandra did not say explicitly that theline was there in any of the scriptures. But themischievous use of Sanskrit led everybody tobelieve that this must have been taken fromsome ancient scripture, and that the scripturecannot be wrong.

A further advance was made in imaginaryhistory writing shortly thereafter. A high officialof the Cooch Behar raj made a bold claim in anofficial publication in 1903 that the Sanskrit lineforwarded by Ananda Chandra was in factderived from a couplet in the Yogini Tantra28



itself. But as we have said earlier there was nosuch line in the said scripture in any of itsrecensions. It was a plain and simpleinterpolation introduced intelligently inSanskrit to serve a specific purpose. Thepurpose was served no doubt because we findthat several modern scholars to this day areusing this quotation without any criticalexamination of the source, or without citing anysource whatsoever as if it were a self-understood event.29

Thus, before their partial as also short-livedconversion to Brahmo religion during the lastquarter of the 19th century, the Kings of CoochBehar with the help of their ministers hadsuccessfully expropriated the Koch identity forthemselves to the exclusion of others. Thatidentity itself was in the meanwhile investedwith the halo of Kshatriyahood basing upon acreative interpretation of the accounts asfurnished in the supposedly ancient religiousscriptures. The story of Parashurama's drivingaway the Kshatriyas provided a convenientleeway for everyone to navigate safely. Asnoticed earlier the Kings were fortified withthe theory of Divine origin hastening theprocess of differentiation between the rulersand the ruled. But despite all these valiantefforts the royal family was ill at ease with theirKoch heritage for it was reported as early as in1872 by the author of the DescriptiveEthnology of Bengal that they "now reject andcondemn the very name of Kocch, and it is badmanners at the court of the descendent of Hajuto speak of the country as Kocch Behar".Dalton had reported that the preferred name ofthe place instead was 'Nijvihar'.30 These wereonly various efforts to get rid of Kochopprobrium. But the ambivalence of the royalhouse was also reflected from an officialpublication (1903) which declared that the firstKoch King was born of the union of Siva withher Koch consort,31 and, therefore, hisdescendents could not be equated with Koch

or Rajbanshi multitudes bereft of divine grace.From nineteenth century onwards there

arose many other claimants to the Kshatriyastatus basing upon the account of Parashuramaand the allusions made in the Yogini Tantra andthe Kalika Purana. An important case was thatof the Kolitas of lower Assam. Martin (1838)had reported that "as soon as the Koch becomenoted in tradition or history, we find that theyhad adopted a priesthood called Kolita or Kolta.These possessed some learning, and books inthe Bengalese language…They no doubt hadsome science, and continued long to be the onlyspiritual guides of the Koch, and indeed in someplaces still retain by far the chief authority overthat people", though, it was said that "the powerof the Kolitas received a severe blow by theintroduction of the Kamrupi Brahmins by Visuthe grandson of Hajo, who chose them as hisguides in religion.32 Of the Kolitas it was saidas follows :33

fl¡ø˘Ó¬±¸fl¡˘ é¬øS˚˛, ¤›“À˘±fl¡1 ¬Û”¬ı3 « ¬Û≈1n∏¯∏ ¸fl¡À˘¬Û1q1±˜1 ̂ ¬˚˛Ó¬ fl≈¡˘ ̆ ≈fl¡±˝◊√√ Ôfl¡±1 ¬ı±À¬ı ̋ ◊√√ø¬ı˘±Àfl¡ fl≈¡˘˘≈5 ¬ı±ëfl¡ø˘Ó¬±í Ú±˜ ¬Û±˝◊√√ÀÂ,ñ ¤˝◊√√ Ê√Ú|øÓ¬ ’±¬ı˝√√˜±Úfl¡±˘1 ¬Û1±’±˜±1 Œ√˙Ó¬ ‰¬ø˘ ’±ø˝√√ÀÂ√º Ê√Ú|n∏øÓ¬ Œfl¡øÓ¬˚˛±› ’˜”˘fl¡ ¬ı±øˆ¬øM√√˙”Ú… ˝√√¬ı ŒÚ±ª±À1º ’Ú… fl¡Ô± ¬ı≈1?œ-ø˘‡Àfl¡ øÚÊ√fl¡äÚ±˜ÀÓ¬ ·øÏ¬ˇ¬ı ¬Û±À1º øfl¡c Ê√Ú|n∏øÓ¬ Œfl¡±ÀÚ±Àª ˝◊√√26√±˜Ó¬ ·øÏ¬ˇ¬ıŒÚ±ª±À1º

The claim of the Kolitas seriously attractedthe attention of the literati.34 Since theyconsidered themselves to be the descendents ofthe Kshatriyas who had fled out of the reach ofParashuram in the past, the Kalitas were alsourged upon by their leaders to use the title of'Barma' after their names.

Against this background of events let us nowtry to examine the predicaments of the Rajbanshicommunity before we conclude. The decennialcensuses being conducted from 1872 onwardsprovided a compelling reason for everybody tobe self-conscious. The 1872 and 1881 censuseshad passed off somewhat unnoticed becausethere was a definite lack of English educated

middle class from among the ranks and file ofthe community in question. Before the 1891census was going to take off HarmohanKhajanchi, a zamindar of Shyampur in thedistrict of Rangpur took the initiative to organizethe people and demanded that the Rajbanshisbe listed as 'Bhanga Kshatriya'(ˆ¬e é¬øS˚˛) i.e.degraded Kshatriyas. The Government washowever inclined to continue listing them as'Koch'. But due to the persistent protest by thepeople the government had to ultimately yieldand seek the opinion of the Brahmin pundits ofRangpur. Accordingly an edict was issued bythe President of the Rangpur Dharma Sabha,Mahamohopadhyay Jadaveswar Tarkaratna tothe effect that the Rajbanshis were the fallenKshatriyas (Bratya Kshatriya) residing in whathad constituted the Paundra region in the ancientperiod. In his opinion the Koch people were aninferior category while the Rajbanshis, whowere a separate people from the Koch, weresuperior to the former in all respects.35

This landmark judgment of punditJadaveswar passed in the middle of February1891 was repeated and reinforced several timeslater when the learned opinion of the religiousscholars from Cooch Behar, Kamrup,Nabadwip, Bikrampur, Benares, and Calcutta,were sought.36 The several learned bodies wereunanimous that the Rajbanshis were Kshatriyaswho had fallen from grace because of their non-observance of certain customary rites. Thescholars suggested that they could again berehabilitated into the Kshatriya fold throughparticipating in certain religious ceremonies asper the tenets of the Shastras.

The line of argument adopted by the punditswas as follows. They said that the members ofthe community in question, that is theRajbanshis, were the traditional inhabitants ofthe region watered by the famous riverKaratoya. Karatoya, it is known, flowed throughthe region named Paundra in the ancient Hindu

scriptures. The Paundras in their turn wereKshatriyas who had degenerated into the statusof Shudra because of non-observance ofsamskara or religious rites. This non-observance was allegedly caused due to thenon-availability of Brahmins who could presideover religious matters in this distant land. Insupport of their contention, they cited the ManuSamhita which had said37

‡ÊŸ∑Ò§SÃÈ Á∑˝§ÿÊ‹Ù¬ÊÁŒ◊Ê— ˇÊÁòÊÿ¡ÊÃÿ—–flÎ·‹àfl¢ ªÃÊ ‹Ù∑§ ’˝Ê±◊áÊÊŒ‡Ê¸ŸŸ ø––¬ıá«˛U∑§ÊpÙ«˛Uº˝ÊÁfl«∏UÊ— ∑§ÊêflÙ¡Ê ¡flŸÊ— ‡Ê∑§Ê—–¬Ê⁄UŒÊ— ¬±‹flÊpËŸÊ— Á∑§⁄UÊÃÊ— Œ⁄UŒÊ— ‡ÊπÊ—––

We may then be allowed to construct thefollowing contrast between the members of theruling dynasty on the one side, and the laysubjects of the state on the other, both of whomwere wary of Koch identity which they wantedto shed off immediately, and acquire theKshatriya status instead. For the rulers thetrajectory was formed on the basis of theKalikaPurana, Yogini Tantra, and the legend ofParashurama as narrated in the Mahabharata(Vanaparva & Shantiparva). The trajectory thenturned out to be as follows:

Kshatriya → Sakoch → Koch → RajganBut, for the lay commoners the trajectory

was made somewhat different. Their ownideologues reconstructed the ethno-history onthe basis of Kalika Purana supplemented byManu Samhita, the legend of Parashurama asin the Bhagavata (12th Skanda,1st Adhyay), andalso the relatively obscure text named BhramariTantra. The trajectory for them finally lookedas in the following :38

Kshatriya→Paundra→Bratya / BhangaKshatriya→Rajbanshi

To sum up, the popular demand at that timewas twofold. (1) They wanted that theGovernment recognize the difference betweenKoch and Rajbanshi, and (2) that the Rajbanshisbe recognized as Kshatriyas which the Kocheswere not. After protracted negotiations for over



two decades, the Superintendent of the 1911Census in his report noted: "The former requestwas granted without hesitation, as there is nodoubt that at the present day, irrespective ofany question of origin, the Rajbanshi and Kochare separate castes" (emphasis added). As faras the second demand was concerned, therewere strong objections raised against it by theCooch Behar administration. The Britishgovernment of India skilfully avoided beingdrawn into trouble by refusing to take a clearstand, and left the matter to be resolved on thesocial plane instead in the long run. Thedialectics of the situation - the unity anddifference - makes an interesting reading at thissafe distance of time. Whether the hindsightwould make us any wiser is for the future toreveal.

IV. CONCLUSION

Over a long time the discourse on theRajbanshi identity has been a medley becauseof the mixing up of the positive order with thenormative order in human affairs. FrancisBuchanan or Martin or several others haddescribed mostly what they saw happeningaround them, and they were misunderstood ata later date. They also relied on their informantsno doubt. At the same time it would be a mistaketo presume that they were not partiallycircumscribed by their colonial outlook andinterests. But their positivistically worked outreport should not be interpreted to be areflection upon the moral order of the societythey were reporting on. Facts are what they are,not what they should be in the opinion of thelearned. It should however be kept in mind thatthe disjunction between the two orders impelsthe society to work out dialectically a synthesisbetween them, and thereby reach a newerdestination.

Whether the Koch and the Rajbanshiidentity should be taken to be identical or not

is an illustration of the above problem. It is inthe fitness of things that the Koch royal houseswere first identified both at the emic and theetic level as being the Rajbanshis parexcellence. The ethnic affiliates of the royalhouse then come into the picture, and they intheir turn also partake in the identity which nowbecomes a shared one. When in course of timethe rulers get distinguished from the ruled, theybecome self-conscious, reject the universallyused (or abused) Rajbanshi identity, anddiscover that in their capacity of being Kochthey must have descended from the Kshatriyafugitives to the east chased out by Parashuram.The shrugged-off commoners make no mistakein returning the compliments by their empiricalobservation that during the contemporaryperiod the Koch people were being discoveredthrough researches to be a mere tribe who werebackward and hence could not be envied upon.In contrast to the royal house, the commonersdid derive their own ancestry by ignoring theYogini Tantra (which was expropriated by theKings for their exclusive use) and relyinginstead on other accounts e.g. the Bhagavatathat speak of another Parashuram in the formof Mahapadma Nanda who had driven outKshatriyas during his rule. Those Kshatriyas,they presume, must have fled to the banks ofthe sacred river Karatoya in the Paundra region,because the Paundras were declared as fallenKshatriyas according to the lawgiver, Manu.

The lesson is clear. The important identitiesare what they are made out to be around a kernelat the level of either an actuality or a possibility.Depending upon exigencies of the situation, anidentity may sometimes lie dormant and atothers become manifest. Identity formation iscontinually in a flux; it is a process rather thanan event, and its existence is not absolutelycontingent upon verification, for an identity canbe modulated if, as the pragmatists would say,it carries a 'cash value' or, in other words, if it

has a use that is worthy of being pursued. And,therefore, while trying to understand thepresent-day crisis of the Koch and Rajbanshicommunity it would be a misfortune if amnesiais allowed to dominate the discourse.

----------------------------------------

The author acknowledges Professor R. S.Mukhopadhyay, Dr. ParthaSarathi Das and SriAjoy Misra, Documentation Officer at theCentre for Himalayan Studies, North BengalUniversity, for helping him with books anddocuments. The author is also thankful toProfessor A. C. Bhagwati for his comments andsuggestions. None of them are howeverresponsible for my views on the subject. Earlierdrafts were presented for discussion at seminarsorganized by Kokrajhar College, Assam on 17July 2006, and by ICHR, North East RegionalCentre, at Guwahati on 11-12 March 2011, andthen finally at a national seminar on'Interrogating Caste in Assam', held at theDeptt. of History, Dibrugarh University, on 17-18 October 2014.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. The Goalpara District Gazetteer (1979),edited by D. P. Barooah, had noted: "Atthe beginning of the current century asdescribed by B. C. Allen, the Rajbanshisalone formed over one-fourth and theytogether with some of their kinsmenclaimed more than half of total populationof the district", p. 102. It was also said that"…the Rajbanshis or Koches are moststrongly represented in the Goalparadistrict. They are a respectable race/casteof Assam", p.103.

2. A map of the Rajbangshi-land drawn onthe basis of the 1921 Census of India, andappended to Robert Henry Clark, A Studyof the Religious Customs and Practices of

the Rajbangshis of North Bengal, AnnArbor, Michigan, 1970, p.553, is notrepresentative of the actual situation. Ourapproximation appears to be groundedbetter upon reality.

3. During a brief interlude the KochRajbanshis were admitted as one of theScheduled Tribes in Assam by an Ordinancenotified by the Government of India throughthe Extraordinary Gazette Notificationno.29 dt. 27.1.1996. The 'restoration'however of the Koch-Rajbonshi to the listof OBCs was made with effect from3.4.1997.

4. Address by Panchanan Sarkar to the FirstConference of the Kshatriya Samiti held atRangpur on 18-19 Baisakha, 1317 B.S., inThakur Panchanan Smarak, KshitishChandra Barman (ed) : Calcutta, 2001,published by the author, p.134.

5. D. Nath : History of the Koch Kingdom1515-1615, Mittal, Delhi,1989, p.5.

6. Francis Buchanan : 'General View of theHistory of Kamrupa' in Kamrupar Buranji,Suryya Kumar Bhuyan (ed) : DHAS,Gauhati, 1958, Appendix C, p.129.

7. Montgomery Martin : The History,Antiquities, Topography, and Statistics ofEastern India, Cosmo, Delhi, 1976, firstpublished 1838,Vol 3, pp.740-41.

8. ibid

9. Francis Hamilton : An Account of Assam,S.K. Bhuyan (ed.) : DHAS, Gauhati, 1963,first impression 1940, p.32.

10. Biswanath Das (ed) : Koch Biharer PrachinKatha, Shabdashilpa, Cooch Behar, 1991,p.157.Samachar Darpan and WeeklyBengal Gazette, both had appeared in 1818.These are the pioneering Bengali



the Ahoms.

25. Biswanath Das (ed) : Jainath Munshi,Rajopakhyan, Mala publications,Calcutta,1989, p.141, published from mss(1845).

26. ibid, p.5.

27. Ananda Chandra Ghosh : Koch BeharerItihas, Ananda Gopal Ghosh and NarayanChandra Saha (ed) : Uttarbanga ItihasParishad, reprint 1990, p. 4, first publishedin 1865. It is curious that the editorsremained oblivious of the veracity of suchimportant remarks. They preferred todiscount Rajopakhyan as a historicalnarrative but had a higher opinion of thelatter work, because they were of theopinion that the former was ë’øfl¡ø=»fl¡¬ı˛fl¡±äøÚfl¡ Î¬◊¬ÛÚ…±À¸˝◊√√ ¬Ûø¬ı˛¬Û”Ì«í while the latter wasëŒfl¡±‰¬ø¬ı˝√√±À¬ı˛¬ı˛ ˝◊√√øÓ¬˝√√±¸ ‰¬‰«¬±¬ı˛ õ∂±Ôø˜fl¡ Î¬◊À√…±·ºí

28. Harendra Narayan Chaudhury : TheCooch Behar State and Its Land RevenueSettlements, Cooch Behar State Press,1903, p.126n.

29. See, for example, GirijaSankar Roy,Uttarbange Rajbangshi Kshatriya JatirPuja-Parban, N. L. Publishers, Dibrugarh,1999, first published 1970, pp. xxi andxxxv; or, Nirmal Chandra Chaudhury,'Jalpesh Mahapeether Prachinattva', inIchamuddin Sarkar (Ed) : Aitihjye o ItihaseUttarbanga, N. L. Publishers, Dibrugarh,2002, 185 and 191.

30. Edward Tuite Dalton : DescriptiveEthnology of Bengal, Indian Studies,Calcutta, reprint 1973, first published1872, p.90. This is in conformity with theofficially changing of name to CoochBehar in 1897 to cast off the infamy ofKoch origin.

31. Harendra Narayan Chaudhury : op. cit.,

newspapers, occupying a very importantplace in history of Bengali journalism. Thefirst issue of Samachar Darpan waspublished on 23 May 1818, and the papercontinued for about 35 years.

11. Surendramohan Basu : Bharat Gaurab,extracted in Kochbiharer Itihas, collectedand collated by Kamal Chaudhuri, Dey'sPublishing, Kolkata, 2006, p.124.

12. Sashibhushan Dasgupta : A DescriptiveCatalogue of Bengali Manuscriptspreserved in the State Library of CoochBehar, 1948.

13. Maheswar Neog (ed) : BordowaGurucharit, Gauhati Book Stall, Gauhati,1980, first published 1832-36 Saka, p.122;

14. Sri Sri Gaurikanta SatradhikardevGoswami (ed) : Sri Sri Hari Atoi PurusharCharitra, Jarabari Satra, Janji, Sibsagar,1964, pp.11-18, with a foreword fromNilmoni Phukon.

15. Sunity Devee : The Autobiography of anIndian Princess, John Murray, London,1921, for a first-hand account of her ownmarriage. We have retained the spelling ofher name as it appeared in the originalpublication, though it is common these daysto spell it simpler - Suniti Devi.

16. ëëø¬ı¬ı± √̋√ ’Ú≈á¬±ÀÚ ¬ıX«̃ ±ÀÚ¬ı˛ ̃ √̋√±¬ı˛±Ê√±, ø√‡±¬ÛøÓ¬ ˛̊±¬ı˛ ¬ı˛±Ê√±,¬Û±˝◊√√fl¡¬Û±Î¬ˇ±¬ı˛ fl≈¡˜±¬ı˛ ̋ ◊√√f‰¬f ø¸—˝√√, ̋ ◊√√Î¬◊À¬ı˛±¬Û ̋ √√ÀÓ¬ øÎ¬Î¬◊fl¡¢∂±øÊ√›ø˘, Î¬Ú Ê≈√ø˘› ˜±ÚøÊ˚˛±Ú± › ˜±fl≈¡«¸ ø¬ÛÊ√±ÀÎ«¬±Œ˚±·√±Ú fl¡À¬ı˛øÂ√À˘Úº øfl¡c ø¬ıÒ˜«œ¬ı˛ Œ˜À˚˛Àfl¡ ø¬ı¬ı±˝√√fl¡À¬ı̨øÂ√À˘Ú ¬ıÀ˘ ¤ ◊̋√√ ’Ú≈á¬±ÀÚ ø¬ıÊ√Úœ Œ√±√¬ı̨„ ¬Û¬ı«Ó¬ÀÊ√±˚̨±¬ı̨˘é¬œ¬Û≈¬ı˛ õ∂ˆ¬‘øÓ¬ ¬ı˛±ÀÊ√…¬ı˛ ’±Rœ ˛̊ ¬ı˛±Ê√±·Ì Œ˚±·√±Ú fl¡À¬ı˛ÚøÚííº√ It is also remarkable that 'Kshatriya'kings from any other princely states of Indiawere also conspicuous by their absence.Dharmanarayan Barma and DhaneswarManta, Kamarup Kamata CoochbeharRajyer Itihas, Minati Adhikari, Tufanganj,

2005, pp. 184-85.

After making a study of JadabChandra's writings and private diary,Nripendranath Pal has presented the matterin greater details. He noted, ëë¬ı…±¬Ûfl¡ ’øˆ¬:Ó¬±¤¬ı— ¸˝√√Ú˙œ˘ ˜ÀÚ±ˆ¬±À¬ı¬ı˛ Ê√Ú… ¬ı‘øÈ¬˙ ¸¬ı˛fl¡±¬ı˛ ˚±√¬ı‰¬Sê¬ıÓ¬œ«Àfl¡ Œfl¡±‰¬ø¬ı˝√√±À¬ı˛¬ı˛ ˜˝√√±¬ı˛±Ê√ fl≈¡˜±À¬ı˛¬ı˛ Δ¬ı¬ı±ø˝√√fl¡Œ˚±·±À˚±À·¬ı˛ √±ø˚˛Q Œ√Ú... ¤˝◊√√ Î¬◊ÀVÀ˙… øÓ¬øÚ ø¬ıøˆ¬iß¶ö±ÀÚ w˜Ì fl¡À¬ı˛Ú, Œ˚˜Ú ¬ı±¬ı˛±Ì¸œ, ¬ıÀ¬ı˛±√±, Œ¬ı±•§±˝◊√√ ¤¬ı—Œ˙À ∏̄ ̃ ±^±Ê√º Œfl¡±Ú é¬øS ˛̊ ¬ı± ¬ı˛±Ê√¬Û≈S ¤ ø¬ıÀ ˛̊ÀÓ¬ Ê√±øÓ¬¬ı˛ø¬ı‰¬±À¬ı˛ ¸•úÓ¬ ˝√√˚˛øÚ... ‰¬Ó≈¬¬ı˛ ‚È¬fl¡ ¬ı± ¬Û±G±¬ı˛± Ó“¬±Àfl¡Œ¬ı±Á¡±ÀÓ¬ Œ‰¬©Ü± fl¡À¬ı˛ ˜˝√√±¬ı˛±Ê√±¬ı˛ Ê√±øÓ¬ Œ·±¬ÛÚ fl¡À¬ı˛¬ÛÂ√μ˜Ó¬ ¬Û±Sœ ¬Û±›˚˛± ¸y¬ıº øfl¡c, øÓ¬øÚ ¤¸¬ı ø˜Ô…±õ∂ô¶±À¬ı ¬ı˛±øÊ√ ˝√√ÚøÚº Ó¬± Â√±Î¬ˇ±› ¤¬ı˛+¬Û õ∂ô¶±À¬ı ˝◊√√—À¬ı˛Ê√Œ¬ı˛ø¸ÀÎ¬ÀKI◊¬ı˛› ’±¬ÛøM√√ øÂ√˘ºíí Nripendranath Pal(ed) : Satabarsha Purbe PrakashitaGranther Punarmudran : BishayKochbihar, Anima Prakashani, Kolkata,1994, pp. 5-6.

17. Bijoybhushan Ghosh Choudhury : Assamo Bangadesher Bibaha Paddhati, extractedin Kochbiharer Itihas, collected andcollated by Kamal Chaudhuri, Dey'sPublishing, Kolkata, 2006, pp. 135-39.It issaid: ëëŒfl¡±‰¬ø¬ı˝√√±¬ı˛ ¬ı˛±Ê√¬ı—À˙¬ı˛ ¬Û≈S-fl¡Ú…±ø√À·¬ı˛ ø¬ı¬ı±˝√√øÚ˚˛ø˜Ó¬¬ı˛+À¬Û ¬ı˛±Ê√¬ı—˙œ ¬Ûø¬ı˛¬ı±À¬ı˛¬ı˛ ¸ø˝√√Ó¬ ˝√ √˝◊ √ √˚˛±’±ø¸ÀÓ¬ÀÂ√ñ fl¡ø2‰¬Ó¬ ≈√ ◊̋√√ ¤fl¡ ¶öÀ˘ ’Ú… Ê√±øÓ¬¬ı˛ ̧ ø˝√√Ó¬›˝√√ ◊̋√√ ˛̊±ÀÂ√º ¬ı˛±Ê√¬ı—˙œ Ê√±øÓ¬¬ı˛ ̃ ÀÒ… ¬ıU ¬Ûø¬ı˛¬ı±¬ı˛ ëfl¡±˚œ«í ¤¬ı—ë˝◊√√˙¬ı˛íñ Î¬◊¬Û±øÒ ‡≈¬ı Œ·Ã¬ı˛À¬ı¬ı˛ ¸ø˝√√Ó¬ ¬ı…¬ı˝√√±¬ı˛ fl¡ø¬ı˛˚˛±’±ø¸ÀÓ¬ÀÂ√Úºíí

18. Kshetramohan Brahma : KuchbiharerBibaran, Bhattacharjya Book House,Calcutta, 1982, first published 1928, pp. 66-67.

19. Montgomery Martin : op. cit., Vol V, p.501.

20. Subodh Chandra Das and BimanChakraborty : 'Koch Bihar RajyeBrahmosamaj Andolan', in Madhuparni,Cooch Bihar District Special Number,(ed)

Ajitesh Bhattacharyya, 1396 B.S., pp.373-79.

21. C.D.Tripathi : Medieval History of Assam,IIAS, Shimla, 2002, p.23.

22. Panchanan Tarkaratna (ed) : KalikaPuranam, Nababharat, Calcutta, 1384B.S., 77th Adhyaya, in Sanskrit.

23. Swami Sarvesvarananda Saraswati(ed) :Yoginitantram, Nababharat, Calcutta, 1385B.S., 13th Patala, pp.132-140. This originalkernel of the story as presented above wasfabricated further over time to construct themuch larger story as was available laterfrom the Darrang Raj Bangshavali. TheKamrupar Buranji also did make a similarelaboration from which many othersborrowed freely. Ultimately those storieswere easily lifted by Buchanan Hamiltonand Montgomery Martin in their turn tofeed for the first time the English readersand thereby provide the source material forthose who cared to borrow. Incidentally, itwas in Yoginitantra (11th Patala) thatKamarupa was delineated as a sacredcountryin a celebrated passage which readas follows:

∑§Ê◊L§¬ ◊„UÊ¬Í¡Ê ‚fl¸Á‚Áh »§‹¬˝ŒÊ–Ÿ¬Ê‹Sÿ ∑§ÊŸøŸÊÁº˝¢ ’˝±◊¬ÈòÊSÿ ‚æU˜ª◊◊––∑§⁄UÃÙÿÊ¢ ‚◊ÊÁüÊàÿ ÿÊflÁg∑§⁄UflÊÁ‚ŸË–™§àÃ⁄UÊSÿÊ¢ ∑§ÊŸ¡ÁªÁ⁄—U ∑§⁄UÃÙÿÊàÃÈ ¬Áp◊––ÃËÕ¸üÊcΔUÊ ÁŒˇÊÈŸŒË ¬Ífl¸SÿÊ¢ ÁªÁ⁄U∑§ãÿ∑§–ŒÁˇÊáÊ ’˝±◊¬ÈòÊSÿ ‹ÊˇÊÊÿÊ— ‚æU˜ª◊ÊflÁœ–∑§Ê◊M§¬ ßÁÃ ÅÿÊÃ— ‚fl¸‡ÊÊSòÊ·È ÁŸÁpÃ—––

24. Darrang Raj Bangshavali, op. cit., Thepanegyric has also recorded the exploits ofsubsequent Kings like Naranarayana andhis brother Chilarai, Lakshmi Narayan,Raghudev, Parikshit Narayan, and BaliNarayana who had settled at Mangaldoi(Darrang) after accepting the suzerainty of



CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS OFSANSKRIT LANGUAGE :A NOTE ON LINGUISTIC STUDIES OF WEST


© Aitihya Samstha Vol.VI, Issue -1, 2015pp 23-32

VISHAV BANDHUDeptt. of Sanskrit, Indraprastha College For Women,University of Delhi

ABSTRACT: Because of their remarkable similarity with other cognate languages ofIndo-European family Causative constructions of Sanskrit came out as an importantevidence of common linguistic base and have been extensively studied and hotly debatedin west since the last half of the 19th century. There can be seen two differentapproaches to the studies, first philological approach and second synchronic approach. InSanskrit especially in Vedic language causative forms in many occasions do not expressa causative meaning. Moreover, the phonological shape of causatives are not unanimousand vary from zero grade (citayati) to full grade (bodhayati) and then up to extendedgrade (pātayati) root vocalism. Explanation of this phenomenon remains the centre ofcontroversies regarding Sanskrit causatives among philologists. While Brugmannsuggested *ye as the prototype of causative aya of Sanskrit and gives phonological lawto explain the variations, Delbruck and Meillet assume two original PIE forms havingiterative and causative meanings. Other philologists also gave different theories. In thelater part of the century the study of causatives was gradually shifting to synchronicanalysis. Thieme emphasised that the aya forms are primarily not causatives buttransitive. There were no instrumental or true causative in Vedic language. Jemisonconcluded that the reason of variation in meaning is not historical but actuallyfunctional. The confusion between transitive-causative and true causatives result in anoncausative-causative dilemma. George Cardona refutes the claim that there were nooriginal causatives in Veda. He concludes that a loss of unmarked passives resulted insubsequent rise in instrumental causatives. Kirpasky and Staal introduced atransformational approach and gave a passive analysis of Sanskrit causatives. Recently,Sanskirt causatives are studied as a part of universal typological studies in west.Regarding Pāiniyan studies there were a controversy among linguists over the technicalterm Hetu.

INTRODUCTION

Causative constructions and the phenomenaof causativization is a widely discussed subjectin current linguistic studies of the west

especially because of its manifestation in vastrange of languages which makes their studyimportant in respect of the research in linguisticuniversals. As causatives appear into almost all

p.126. This was an official publication ofthe State of Cooch Behar wherein it wassaid, "The term should not therefore betaken in its literal sense."

32. Martin : op. cit., Vol V, pp.543-44.

33. Gaurikanta Talukdar : KamaruparKshatriyajati, Harimalla Barma andKrishnaram Barma, Gauhati, 1331B.S.,p.12.

34. W.W.Hunter in his Statistical Account ofthe District of Goalpara (1879) had takencognizance of this movement. Apart fromhim Padmanath Gohain Baruah,Lakshminath Bezbaruah , Gopal KrishnaDe and several others had written incontemporary Assamese periodicals onthis subject. ibid.

35. ˜˝√√±˜À˝√√±¬Û±Ò…±˚˛ ̊ ±√À¬ıù´¬ı˛ Ó¬fl«¡¬ı˛P Ê√±Ú±Ú Œ˚ ëëŒfl¡±‰¬ ›¬ı˛±Ê√¬ı—˙œ ≈√˝◊√√øÈ¬ ¬Û‘Ôfl¡ Ê√±øÓ¬º ... ¬ı˛±Ê√¬ı—˙œ ’±˚«…Ê√±øÓ¬¸y”Ó¬ Œ¬ÛÃHé¬øS˚˛ , Ó¬À¬ı ¬ıUfl¡±˘ ̧ ±ø¬ıSœ¬ÛøÓ¬Ó¬, ¤˜ÀÓ¬¬ıË±Ó¬…é¬øS˚˛ºíísee Upendranath Barman :Thakur Panchanan Barmar Jibancharit,Panchanan Smarak Samiti, Jalpaiguri,

second edition 1981, p. 10.

36. Copies of judgments of all these learnedbodies are available in Thakur PanchananSmarak, op. cit.

37. Murari Mohan Sen Shastri (Ed) : ManuSamhita, Dipali Book House,Calcutta,1985, X. 43-44.

38. This whole reconstruction was done withmeticulous care by Upendranath Barman.See Upendranath Barman, RajbanshiKshatriya Jatir Itihas, (Panchanan SmarakSamiti, Jalpaiguri, 4th edition 1995, 1stedition 1941). In recent years,Dharmanarayan Barma has howeveradopted an eclectic approach; Heconceded,ëëfl¡À˚˛fl¡ ˝√√±Ê√±¬ı˛ ¬ı»¸¬ı˛ ¬Û”À¬ı« ˜Ú≈¶ú‘øÓ¬ÀÓ¬˝◊√√¬ı˛±Ê√¬ı—˙œ ˛̊À√¬ı˛ [Œ¬ÛÃH ¬ıË±Ó¬… é¬øS ˛̊] ̧ g±Ú ’±˜¬ı˛± Œ¬ÛÀ ˛̊Ô±øfl¡º Ó¬À¬ı ¬ı‘˝√√M√√¬ı˛ ¬ı˛±Ê√¬ı—˙œ ¸˜±ÀÊ√¬ı˛ ˜ÀÒ… fl≈¡‰¬À¬ı˝√√±¬ı˛¬ı ˛ ±Ê√ ¬ı—˙ ˝ ◊ √ √ √ ±Úœ— ø˜À˙ ø·À˚˛ÀÂ √ºíí SeeDharmanarayan Barma : RajbanshiKshatriya Jatir Itibritta bonam TribalAndolan, Raidak Prakashan, Tufanganj,1998, p.10.

Baniprasanna Misra

22 ‹øÓ¬˝√√… The Heritage, Vol.VI, Issue-1, 2015 ‹øÓ¬˝√√… The Heritage, Vol.VI, Issue-1, 2015

Vishav Bandhu Causative Constructions of Sanskrit Language...

the languages structural features of differentlanguages are easily comparable. In facttypological studies started with a study ofcausative constructions. Leningrad TypologyGroup, founded in 1962 came out with the workThe Typology of Causative Constructions(Xolodovic, 1969) in Russian. This laid thefoundation of subsequent typologicalresearches. In this backdrop study of Sanskritcausatives remains highly relevant amongwestern linguists. Here, in section 1 first asurvey of the study of Sanskrit causatives inthe west is presented. In section 2 majorapproaches and changing paradigms in thestudies of Sanskrit causatives is illustrated withsubsections depicting the major achievementsof each approach.

1. An Account of the Major Studies

Causative forms of Sanskrit, because ofboth philological and synchronic reasons areextensively studied in west since the early latterhalf of the 19th century. Berthold Delbruck inas early as 1874 drew attention about thedistinction of function between two types ofcausative roots of Sanskrit namely, theunstrengthened roots and the strengthened roots(such as patayati (flies) and pātayati (makesfly).1 Karl Brugmann in 1876 used these twophonetic types of causatives as importantevidence of his famous law of phonetictransition.2 He however ignored the functionalvariations.3 Since then a series of scholars tookinterest into the study of causative forms ofSanskrit as the forms furnish considerableevidence for both phonological and functionalissues and controversies. From Meillet (1896,Le traitement de i.e. o en indo-iranien)4 (1905,Observations sur le verbe latin)5, Kurylowicz(1929, Le genre verbal en indo-iranien)6 andThieme (1929, Das Plusquamperfektum imVeda)7 a long range of debate regarding aneffective philological explanation of thephonetic and functional variations of the

Causative forms of Sanskrit continued and isstill continuing. Since Thieme the focus shiftedfrom philological to functional features ofSanskrit causatives. Franklin Edgerton (1946,Indic Causatives in āpayati;8 1953, BuddhistHybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary)9,Edgerton and Bloomfield (Vedic Variants I:The Verb)10 discussed the causative forms ofSanskrit in light of the later developments inPrākt and in other variants. Comparative studyof Burrow (1955, Sanskrit Language)11 can beregarded as a major contribution to theunderstanding of the causatives of Sanskrit. Inmore recent time some major studiesencompassing the historical and synchronicaspects of Sanskrit causatives took place.Jemison (1977, Function and form in the -aya-formations of the Rigveda and Atharvaveda)12,George Cardona (1978, Relations betweenCausatives and Passives in Indo-Iranian13;1981, Vedic Causatives14), H. H. Hock (1981,Sanskrit Causative Syntax: A DiachronicStudy15 and Causes, passive agents, orinstruments? Instrumental NPs with causativesin early and later Vedic Pros.)16, Eric Hamp(1985, Transitive and Causative in Indo-European)17, Vit Bubenik (1987, PassivizedCausatives in Sanskrit and Prakrits)18 are tobe mentioned in this regard. Meanwhiletreatment of causatives in Pāini took theattention of the western linguists at this timeand specific Pāini centred studies of causativesare carried out. Explanation of the rules andstructure of Aādhyāyī in the light of latercommentaries etc. took place. Rosane Rocher(1964, The Technical Term Hetu in Panini'sAstadhyayi)19, George Cardona (1971, Causeand Causal Agent: The Paninian View)20, PaulKirpasky & J. F. Staal, (1969, Syntactic andSemantic Relations in Panini)21, are pioneersin this field. Study of Sanskrit causatives as apart of universal typological studies is alsoinitiated by linguists of the west. In this regardsome research has been carried out by Comrie

(1976, The Syntax of Causative Constructions:Cross-language Similarities andDivergences)22 and Kulikov (2001, Causatives,Language Typology and LanguageUniversals)23.

2. Trends and Approaches

Earlier studies (later half of the 19th centuryto first half of the 20th century) regardingcausatives were mostly philological. Laterstudies (last half of the 20th century) such asthat of Thieme, Edgerton, Bloomfield,Cardona, Jemison, Hock, Hamp etc includeboth synchronic and diachronic aspects in theiranalysis of causatives. Kirpasky and Staalintroduce transformational approach to thegeneration of causative verbs. As far as Pāinior Indian grammar centred works are concernedRosen, Kirpasky and Staal, Cardona are pioneerWestern linguists in this area. Pāini's treatmentof Hetu (causer) and analysis of the derivationof causative verbs in Pāini remains a vibranttopic of discussion among these linguists andsubsequently produced good number ofliterature. Keeping this trend in mind two majorapproaches or treatment towards Sanskritcausatives can be roughly distinguishedthroughout the history of its study:

i) Philological studies.ii) Synchronic studies.However, these two approaches to Sanskrit

causatives are not mutually exclusive. On thecontrary, in most of the studies there is anamalgamation of the two approaches. Theabove division is conceptualised rather to givean idea about the transition in linguistic studiesof west in the last century that clearly hasinfluenced and shaped the trend in study ofSanskrit causatives also. Pāini or Indiangrammar centred studies may be included inthe synchronic studies. In the next section brief

detailing of the achievements of studies in eachapproach is attempted.

2.1 Philological Studies

Sanskrit causatives furnished ample scopeof controversies among western linguistsregarding the hypothetical phonological andfunctional shape of the so called Indo-Europeanor Proto Indo-European Language. Witneyobserves that causative formation is much morefrequent in use and more decidedly expandedinto a full conjugation than the other derivedverb forms. J.S. Speijer in Sanskrit Syntaxremarks along the same line: '...it is onlycausatives that have retained their old elasticityand are still made of any verbal root, but thedesiderative and denominatives are as a ruleemployed within a little circle of forms oftenrecurring, and the intensives have almost fallenout of use.'24 In the early language causativesare made up from more than three hundred roots(RV. from about one hundred fifty) but formsother than the present system are very few. Inhis Sanskrit grammar Witney very minutelyobserves the number of occurrence of forms inwhole of the Vedic literature. For example, inRgveda two causative forms of future, onepassive participle, and ten infinitives are found.Noun derivatives from causatives are decidedlymore numerous and various than any otherforms. In Sanskrit the causatives are neitheruniform in form nor in function. There arevariations in root vocalism even within the sameroots. Some roots can have zero grade andextended grade root vocalism (citayati/cetayati), some other roots can have either fullor extended grade root vocalism (patayati/pātayati). Moreover, causatives withcomparatively lesser root vocalism generally(in Vedic language) give non-causative sense.Most of the philological discussions werecentred on this feature of the causatives.Phonological solution of the problem is at firstattempted. Brugmann proposed a unified ye


formation (parallel to the aya in Sanskrit) inthe protolanguage. Such a formation accordingto Brugmann's law turns into ā root vocalismin open syllable and ă in closed syllable roots.

But this rule failed to explain the functionalnoncausative-causative division of the ayaforms. Delbruck and Meillet conceptualizedtwo different form and function of iterative andcausative corresponding to the two forms ofaya and āya in Sanskrit in the parent language.But this did not solve the question as it is raisedby Jamison that why verbs with light rootsyllables sometime have a causative or at leastcausative transitive meaning (janayati, 'begets',darayati, 'storms'). Kurylowicz posit a unifiedye form with iterative meaning in the PIAlanguage. According to him the formationwould develop a causative meaning only whenthe difference of voice ceased to be used toexpress the relation of causativity i.e. activevoice no longer remains causative to the middle(vartayati develops a causative because of theloss of the active form vartati which used to bea causative to vartate). Diathesis difference asexpressive of causativity may be still useful inSanskrit but for other cognate languages suchdifference is not so rigid. Again, decline ofdiathesis difference do not give any reason whyye forms which were iterative will gain acausative sense.25

A considerable number of scholars assumedthe view that the aya formation is denominativein origin. Whiney writes "It is a view nowprevailingly held that most of the present-system of the Sanskrit verb, along with otherformations analogous with a present-system,are in their ultimate origin denominative; andthat many apparent roots are of the samecharacter."26 Franklin Edgerton, MauriceBloomfield, T. Burrow though do not think thatall causatives are denominative in origin butthey believe that certainly some causatives arenot historical causatives but are denominativeswith altered accent. 27

Apart from this aya sign causatives aremade also with 'paya' sign. Franklin Edgertonin an enlightening essay named 'IndicCausatives in Apayati' discusses the featuresand peculiarities of Middle Indo Aryancausatives.28 There he observes that causativesmade up with 'paya' in Sanskrit are regularlyor invariably causative in meaning as comparedto those which are made up of 'aya'.29 He alsoshows how in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (BHS)and in Middle Indic (MI) though the ayaformation can still be seen to be used yet mostlyMI and BHS use an 'indefinite productivecausative formation containing a suffix -āpayaor -āpe- (Pkt. -āve-)'. For example, kriāpayati,ksipāpayet etc.30 Edgerton also shows thatmany of the underlying stems of MI causativesare historically Skt. Causatives in aya form. Theāpaya formations then at least from historicalstandpoint can be said as causative to acausative. Instances of such formations arekarāpayati based on Skt. kārayati, bhisāpayetfrom bhisayati etc. Though it is commonlyassumed that āpaya formations when based onsuch historically causative bases often have thesame meaning as the later Edgerton believesthat

"whatever the meaning of the underlyingstem in -aya- stem may be, the meaning of the-āpaya- stem is causative to that."31

From the historical point of view causativesprovokes number of questions regarding thephases of their development in the language.Most of the philological questions are centredon these questions, do the usual process of ayaformation in causatives are consistentthroughout the ages? Why there are so manyexamples of causative forms used without theircausative value? Do the phonologicaldifference is in consistence with the functionaldifference? Did the aya forms start gaining anadditional causative meaning in early Sanksritwhich was perhaps iterative in sense in themother language? Or on the contrary they

started in any stage losing their causative senseand an extra coat of causative suffix in form ofapaya has to be loaded on them?

2.2 Synchronic Studies

Let us now come to our next point oflinguistic analysis of the causative forms. Herealso the same question that to what amount thecausative forms can be called real causativesremains dominant. But the approach toward theproblem is now different. Instead of constantlycomparing with the phonological systems ofother cognate languages now the focus wasshifted to the internal structure of Sanskritlanguage and an answer is tried to find outthere. The function of the causative verbs inthe language is closely observed. Theaccusative and instrumental placing of thecausee (prayojya kartā) also remains an objectof study.

Paul Thieme (1929) first came up with asynchronic study of ijanta verbs.32 For the firsttime he shifted the focus to the fact that thecommon characteristics of all the ijanta verbsis not causativity but transitivity.Causativisation comes as a corollary functionand a later evolution due to functional and notphonological reasons. There is a shift to notethe causative value of the forms and make adistinction between the transitive (transitive/causative) and the true causatives. Thisdichotomy came as a clearer solution to thenoncausative-causative confusion of the ijantaverbs. Syntax of causative constructions cameas the central subject of these studies.According to Thieme in the early language truecausatives exists only with intransitive verbs.For example, roditi 'weeps' : rodayati 'makesweep', āste 'sits' : āsayati 'have sit', sidati 'sits': sādayati 'have sit', etc. According to Thiemeeven verbs that come with object of goal orverbs that takes unaffected objects such as verbsof perception (dś, cit, śru etc), motion(gacchati 'goes':gamayati 'makes to go') are

intransitive. So, the double accusativeconstruction is basically not causative buttransitive alone.33

Jemison (1977) agrees with Thieme in allthese points. To overcome the ambiguity of'transitive verbs' (roots like gam, cit, śru) thattake ijanta forms which is prevalent inThieme, Jemison (1977) constructs a functionaldefinition of transitivity. According to Jemisononly those verbs that do not take any casemarking other than accusative can truly becalled transitive. Verbs that come in cases likegenitive or locative can at best be calledIntransitive/ Transitive (I/T) verbs.34

According to Jemison these verbs along withtrue intransitive verbs take ijanta constructionin order to make the sentence transitive.Jamison in her scholarly work takes each andevery aya formations and analyse the causativeor noncausative value of the same in each caseof their occurrence in the gveda and theAtharvaveda. She comes to the conclusion thatinstrumental causatives are later in time andare the true causatives. Double accusativecausatives in the early period are mostlycausative-transitive though true doubleaccusative causatives are also found in theVedic language.

Cardona (1978) agrees with Thieme (1929)and Jemison (1977) on the point that thefunction of the ijanta verbs in early Vedic wasprimarily transitive but he thinks that it wasnot a transitive-causative in every case. Truecausative of transitive verbs are made at thattime also. He concludes that such a kind ofconstruction is an inherited one and truecausatives are found in IE languages. Cardonadiscusses this point more elaborately. Herefutes the suggestion made by Thieme orJemison that those verbs of motion, perceptionetc. should be treated as intransitive or at leastpseudo transitive. He gives a number of datato prove that causal of these verbs must bepaired with the active transitive base as pairing

Vishav Bandhu Causative Constructions of Sanskrit Language...


it with the middle intransitive will not deliverthe desired meaning. ijanta of verbs likeśrāvayati works as causative to both theintransitive middle śnve 'is heard' and śoti'hears'. But while in parallel to śve, śrāvayatimay be transitive-causative but in parallel tośoti, śrāvayati is clearly a true causative.35

Cardona (1978) maps the function of ic inrelation to intransitive/ passive, transitive andcausative verbs in the Veda and gives a pictureof the further transition that could havehappened in the function of ic in laterlanguage.36

Cardona refutes the position of Thieme andJemison that instrumental causees of transitiveverbs or for that matter true causatives of laterdate is an outcome of inherent ambiguity ofdouble accusative transitive-causatives.37

Cardona suggests instead a phase of transactioninvolving the passives and related causativesof earlier language. He suggests that loss ofmedio-passive ending forms (for example mjeis no longer found in the later language) andthe shift of meaning of the medial endings frompassive or intransitive to agentive 'the resultbelonging to the agent of the work' which leftonly marked passives as correspondingintransitive of an active transitive has a relationwith the causative system of Sanskrit as it ispresent now.38

Here a very interesting observation ofWitney should be mentioned. He noticed thatin the whole conjugation system of the verbsperhaps the 'ya' class (div class) shows atendency towards arrangement of verbsaccording to meaning as most of the verbs area kind of intransitive nature. He finds it relatedwith passive constructions both in terms ofmeaning and structure as passives also comewith the 'ya' sign.39 The subject of the simplesentence takes instrumental case in the surfacelevel of its causative. Yehuda N. Falk in hisessay 'Causativisation' points out thisrelationship. He says "We see that in some

cases the causee can be represented in the sameway as the 'agent' of a passive (henceforthPASSIVIZED SUBJECT)". 40

Paul Kiparskey and J.F. Staal give atransformational approach to the passiveanalysis of Sanskrit causatives. According tothem the base sentence of a causative formationundergoes a passive alteration and hence thedeep subject is seen in instrumental case.41

They show that the rule A. 1.4.52 wherePanini deals with the verbs that do not allowits agents of the simple sentence to take theinstrumental case in their causative actuallysuggests to a passive analysis.42 The reasonbehind such a restriction of instrumentalposition for the agent is simply because passivecannot be applied inside the embedded sentenceof a causative construction in case of the verbsthat are listed by Panini. This phenomenon iseven same with English.

H.H. Hock is one scholar who does notagree with the passive analysis. According tohim the instrumental causee is basically aninstrumental instrument which functions asinstrumental causee for causative constructions.In early Vedic prose their instrumental naturecan be realized but in later Vedic, instrumentalcausees no longer can be identified as aninstrument.43

Let us now come to the study of Pāiniyantreatment of causer-causee relation. Pāiniidentifies noncausative cause-effectconstructions in Sanskrit and uses a commonterm hetu for them. Pāini however applies theterm for 'causal agent' also.44 There isconsiderable difference among scholars(tradition too discusses this at length) thatwhether the term Hetu apart from signifying a'cause' also signifies a 'causal agent' or not i.e.whether the term Hetu is a samj–ā 'technicalname' or a general term used in common sense.In resent time Rosen (1964), Kiprasky and Stall(1969) and Cardona (1971) discuss this matterat length. Rosen fully refutes the traditional

claim that Hetu is a special samj–ā or causalagent. According to her in every case the termis used in one simple meaning 'cause'. Cardonacompletely differs with her and defends thetechnical meaning of the term Hetu. He adheresto the natural sense of the term also. Kiparskyand Stall takes a middle path. According tothem Hetu in A.3.1.26 is a technical term forcausal agent but at the same time the term bearsa relation with the places where it is used in itsnatural sense.

3. Conclusion

Causative constructions of Sanskrit havebeen prevailing as an exciting ground of debateand discussion among western philologists andlinguists from almost one and a half century.As causatives in many occasions depictevidence of relationship among cognatelanguages of Indo-European family they areone of the most hotly debated over linguisticfeatures. Verbs having causative shapes andfunctionally depicting noncausative meaningsremain as a primary concern for philologists.First this problem was tried to solve onphonological grounds but soon it was felt thatit is the inherent ambiguity in the function ofthe Sanskrit that results into a difference inmeaning. Factors like syntactic relationship ofcausatives and passives, causativity relationbetween intransitive and transitive verbs etc.,came out as responsible for the ambiguousbehaviour of the causatives. However,historical facts undoubtedly have ampleinfluence in shaping up the causativeconstructions of Sanskrit. Western linguistscontributed highly in an overall understandingand interpre

Documents

Aitihya 2015 VoL-VI, ISSUE-1, 2015Layoutaitihyatheheritage.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Aitihya-Vol.-VI-Issu… · the Rajbanshis living in Meghalaya also veer around the nomenclature