Origins Of The Guptas

source: wikipedia

The Gupta Empire and it's legacy bear upon popular imagination to this day. It is no surprise, that this illustrious Empire which secured during the early and middle centuries of the 1st millennium CE, holds a strong place among popular narratives of Indian history. Its military, economic, and administrative apparatus allowed this empire to sustain it's vast acquisitions across North India for roughly 300 years. During this time, the peace and security that it afforded for it's denizens, allowed for a period cultural products were elaborated at an unprecedented scale, epics were compiled, classics were written and military prestige was secured. However, the eminent bloodline which graced the Imperial Majesty of the Gupta Throne left behind scarce traces for historians to understand who and what they were, and where they came from.

This creates a problem for historians, and leaves the question open for the often undesirable conjectures of popular history. The political history of c. 300-600 CE has been largely reconstructed on the basis of inscriptions and coins. Various groups today claim to be of the same social/regional group as the Guptas. Claims and counter claims create room for friction among groups both online and otherwise. Such appropriation of historical figures and dynasties and the friction between communities as a result of these claims, has been a concerning recurrence. We aim here, to provide a commentary on the work that historians have provided over the last century on this subject. We hope to present these arguments with both brevity and the due attention they deserve. We ultimately do not aim to provide a verdict on the identity of the Guptas, but rather, a reasonable conclusion based on the available sources and our own rationalization of these evidences.

We first start with providing an overview of the available evidence. This evidence is both primary translations of the available inscriptions, commentaries on these translations and secondary sources which provide further commentary and interpretation and historiography on the existing primary sources. We then provide some arguments against these evidences or agree with them, depending on the veracity of the claims made and our own understanding of the corpus of evidence available and the logical through line of the arguments presented.

The Original Homeland Of The Guptas:

 Source: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mahajanapadas_(c._500_BCE).png#mw-jump-to-license

The history of the early Guptas has been a difficult one to piece together, this is owing to the incredible paucity of surviving sources referencing the founders of the Gupta dynasty and their place of origin. Inscriptions are either incomplete or vague, leaving room for conjectures and multiple theories. The Puranas are one piece of evidence that might provide more information in this direction. However, the nature of these scriptural evidences makes piecing history together using their clues, a difficult process as well, since these must be rationalized and wedded with available archaeological, numismatic and epigraphical data. Apart from these, we also have foreign accounts, which might shed some light on this obscure period of the Gupta's history and allow historians to trace their original homeland.

Due to dearth of information regarding the native place of the Guptas, we do not seem to find concurrence among the various scholars on this matter. So this creates an arena of debate and discussions . Many scholars have put forth their opinions, for some they originally belonged to present day Eastern Uttar Pradesh, yet some posed the theory that they were from Bihar (Magadha), while others argued that they originally belonged to North West region of Bengal or Mathura.

R.C Majumdar(1888-1980)

According to RC Majumdar, in History and Culture of the Indian People Vol 3, Classical Age, 1954, p. 2-3. " As regards the locality of this kingdom some light is thrown by a passing observation of the Chinese pilgrim I-tsing. I-tsing, who travelled in India during the period A.D. 671-695, refers to a king Srigupta as having built a temple for the Chinese pilgrims and endowed it with twenty-four villages. Some scholars have identified this king with the founder of the Gupta dynasty and located the temple in Magadha. Consequently they place the kingdom of the early Guptas in Magadha. But there are certain difficulties in accepting this view. In the first place, I-tsing places Srigupta about five hundred years before his time, whereas the founder of the Gupta dynasty cannot be placed more than four hundred, or at the most, four hundred and fifty years before he wrote. The identity can, therefore, be maintained only if we regard the five hundred years as only a round approximate figure. This is not an unreasonable view, especially when we remember that the “Chinese pilgrim gives the statement on the authority of a tradition handed down from ancient times by old men.” The identification of the king mentioned by I-tsing with Srigupta, the founder of the Gupta family, may, therefore, at least a provisional hypothesis.

I Tsing(635-713 AD)

There is, however, no justification for the view that the temple which this king built for the Chinese was situated in Magadha. The bearing and the distance given by the Chinese pilgrim place it in the western borders of northern or central Bengal and this is corroborated by some other details mentioned by him. We may, therefore, hold that Srigupta’s kingdom comprised a portion of Bengal ".

The above mentioned theory is largely relying upon the account of Chinese pilgrim I Tsing, who places Sri Gupta five hundred years before his time. No other sources supplement this view of I Tsing, hence it would be right to say that the date and place related to Sri Gupta could be a mere surmise. To bolster his theory RC Majumdar lacks other relevant sources. There are no written records which mention the region of Guptas was Bengal. It is also observed that, no Gupta coins have been found in Bengal during the early Gupta age. Bindershwari Prasad Sinha is one of the critics who rejects this view of RC Majumdar. J F Fleet who is considered as an authority on Guptas also rejects this view of Sri Gupta as the founder of the Gupta Dynasty due to issues relating to the dates and inconclusive evidence.

Further, Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha in his Comprehensive History of Bihar Vol I, Part II,p.g 2 -3 says that the Purana's verse mentions Gupta Dynasty with the first king being Chandragupta I and not Srigupta. This annuls the controversy around the China temple and Srigupta being the founder of the empire. We also notice that Srigupta was given the title of Maharaja, but B D Chattopadhya states that according to Gupta tradition Maharaja was the title which was subordinate and the superior title was Maharajadhiraja. This further disfigures the core of the argument. He also says that nothing definite could be said regarding the extent of the Gupta empire but he proposed that the territory eastward including Prayag and Sarnath might have been under the Guptas. 

H C Raychaudhauri(1892-1957)

According to Hemchandra Raychaudhuri, in Political History Of Ancient India Ed. 4, 1938, p. 445

" The first independent sovereign (Maharajadhiraja) of the line was Chandra Gupta I, son of Ghatotkacha, who may have ascended the throne in 320 A.D, the initial date of the Gupta Era. Like his great forerunner Bimbisara he strengthened his position by a matrimonial alliance with the Lichchhavis of Vaisali or of Nepal, and laid the foundations of the Second Magadhan Empire..... But Allan suggests that Pataliputra was in the possession of the Guptas even in Sri Gupta’s time."

"In the opinion of Allan the Puranic verses defining the Gupta dominions refer to his reign:

-Kings born of the Gupta family will enjoy all these territories along the Ganges viz. Prayag (Allahabad), Saketa (Oudh) and Magadha (South Bihar)".

Raychaudhuri provides a convincing argument with regards to the original homeland of the Guptas being Magadha, a theory propounded by J. Allan as well, however, the Puranic verse which refers to the territories controlled by the early Guptas, does not establish that the Guptas ruled from Magadha to begin with. Indeed it asserts that south Bihar would be one of the territories controlled by the early Gupta scions. Therefore, to use this verse as the basis of establishing the original homeland cannot be seen as justified. It is just as likely that the Puranic verse may be used to establish Prayag or Saketa as the original homeland of the Guptas. Therefore, we must reject Pataliputra as the capital or Magadha as the definitive original homeland of the Guptas.

Fifth Damodarpur Plate

Furthermore, we learn in Dynastic History Of Northern India Volume I, 1931, p. 272-273, by L.D Barnett, that in the 6th century (543 AD) , the governors of Northern Bengal omitted the word "Gupta" in the fifth Damodarpur plate, recognizing nominal suzerainty of the Guptas. This stands in opposition of Majumdar's claim that the Guptas were hereditary rulers of Northern Bengal since were they the same, why would such an illustrious house abandon its ancestral seat of power which must have occupied incredible importance in their dynastic history, given that we find minimal inscriptions and coin hoards in the region compared to Saketa and Prayag. The Guptas seem to be a dynasty originating out of the middle Gangetic valley, from Saketa or Prayag and seem to have acquired the eastern acquisition of the Imperial city of Pataliputra later on. 

K P Jaysawal(1881-1937)

According to KP Jayaswal in his History of India,150 AD- 350 AD (1933) P.123.

The Vayu and the Brahmand Purana place the beginning of the Gupta after closing the Nagas who are rulers in Bihar up to Champawati aur Bhagalpur but the Vishnu places there beginning in the period of the Nagas whereby it implies the rise of Gupta  and Ghatotkach which means that while the Nav Nagas ruled at Padmavati, Kantipuri and Mathura, Magadha Gupta ruled at Prayag on the Ganges. This shows that their first fief was in the district of Allahabad and that at the time they were considered to have been the natives of Magadha. The plain meaning of this information is that the early Guptas were the rulers at Allahabad and not on the Jamuna side but on the Ganga side that is on the side of our and Banaras.

According to KP Jayaswal, the Guptas were originally the inhabitants of Prayag (Allahabad). He states that the early Guptas were the feudatories of Nagas or Bharsivas. This theory was framed on the basis of Puranic literature, inscriptions and especially numismatics evidences since several coins belonging to the Gupta Dynasty have been found in Allahabad region. So this theory can be accepted with ease. In addition to KP Jayaswal, the theory that the Guptas were originally the inhabitants of Prayag (Allahabad) has been supported by several other historians such as SR Goyal.

From the above arguments, we have seen how claims about the Gupta homeland being Magadha are almost entirely based on the evidence cited by historians on the subject repeatedly, with regards to the Chinese pilgrim I-Tsing. There are many issues with such a suggestion. The fact that the pilgrim visited the subcontinent in the late 7th century is chief among them. The other problem arises in the nature of sources used by the pilgrim to ascribe a temple in Mi-li-kia-si-kia-pao-oo, endowed with 24 villages was commissioned or sanctioned by the Chi-li-ki-to, whom Allan interprets to be Sri Gupta and Majumdar the region in question to be Western parts of Northern Bengal. We have seen how the "Bengal Homeland" theory, propounded by RC Majumdar, DC Ganguly, BD Chattopadhyaya (Malda district in Bengal), is based on extremely thin evidence, we further note that similarly the Magadha Homeland, forwarded by A.S Altekar and others, argument does not have many legs to stand on. BP Sinha on the other hand, suggests the Mathura-Ayodhya region for the original homeland. As historian S.R Goyal states in his History Of The Imperial Guptas, 1967, p. 43, where he talks about the Chinese pilgrim's account.

"based on it's translation by Beal it is to be identified with Sarnath, whereas another interpretation based on the translation given by Chavannes would favour it's location in Murshidabad district of West Bengal"

Now as Prof. Goyal goes on to say on p. 43-44 himself, that the evidences for the assertion of the Magadha, Sarnath or Bengal Homeland theories are slim. There is first the issue that the identification of Chi-li-ki-to, which hinges on the argument that "it is unlikely that we should have two different rulers in the same territory of the same name within so brief a period".

In the words of Goyal :

"instances could be cited from Gupta History itself of two Chandraguptas and three Kumaraguptas"

Kumaragupta (415-455 AD)

Furthermore, states Goyal, the assumption that Maharaja Gupta and Chi-li-ki-to ruled over the same territory is as well, unproven, given the inability to conclusively provide the location of Mi-li-kia-si-kia-pao-oo. The identity of the king Chi-li-ki-to depends on the assumption that the territory of Mi-li-kia-si-kia-pao-oo lay within the early Gupta territories. This as well, is unproven.

Goyal best summarizes his argument which we find agreeable in the following paragraph on p. 44 :

"Thus, the evidence of I-tsing can hardly have any bearing on the problem unless we could independently prove that Mi-li-kia-si-kia-po-no was situated within the territory ruled over by the first Gupta Maharaja. More important is the fact that even it's acceptance does not prove that the king Gupta ruled over Magadha. It has been maintained that as Chi-li-ki-to met the Chinese priests at Bodh-Gaya, Magadha must have been a part of his kingdom. But decidedly it is a very weak basis to build a theory upon. It is a well-known fact that Bodh-Gaya was a great religious centre. It is more reasonable, therefore, to assume that Chi-li-ki-to himself went to that place as a pilgrim".

Middle Gangetic Region

Prof. Goyal argues in favour of a Middle Gangetic valley homeland. One located in Prayag-Saketa. This he bases on the arguments of available archaeological evidence with reference to the quantum of inscriptions and coins found in proximity, or rather in, the Gupta homeland, this being the modern day region of Central and Eastern UP. As Goyal rightfully argues on, p. 45-46, that of the 24 coin boards so far discovered belonging to the Guptas, 14 have been found in UP, in districts such as Banaras, Faizabad, Gorakhpur (2), Prayagraj (2), Jaunpur (2), Ballia (2), Unnao etc. With only 2 in Bihar and 2 in Bengal.

It may be argued that coin hoards travel in many direction and the quantum or surplus of coins in a region may be a product of consumption practices and circulation, however it's likewise true that circulation of metallic currency in the period was contained. And circulation would be higher in velocity and volume close to the capital and the mints, rather than the peripheries. Lastly, the coin hoards available belong to the reigns of Chandragupta I, and Samudragupta, the earliest available coins and in the most remarkable numbers. This argument presents a strong candidate in Eastern UP for the original homeland of the Guptas.

An analysis of the Gupta Era inscriptions, according to Goyal present a similar story. As he points out on, p. 47-48, of the 15 inscriptions of the Gupta period, 8 belong to UP, 2 to Magadha and 5 to Bengal. Interestingly, the Gaya grant inscription was issued from Ayodhya, not a region in Magadha or indeed Pataliputra. This is again indication of the relationship between Saketa (UP) and the Guptas. Meanwhile, all inscriptions in Bengal are from the later Gupta period, belonging to the reign of Kumaragupta I, at the earliest and are all copper plate grants. As Goyal rightfully notes on p. 48.

"it merely proves the sway of the  Guptas over this province during the reign of this Emperor, and in no way indicates that this was their home province. The case of the inscriptions found in Magadha.... is similar "

Allahabad Pillar Inscription

Goyal opines that the inscriptions found in UP are certainly worthy of special mention. Of the 8 found, 3 are pillar inscriptions, 3 on stone slabs and 2 on stone images. The Allahabad inscription is one of the oldest, from the reign of Samudragupta I himself. Meanwhile the Bhitari pillar inscription records the installment of an image of the God Sarngin, in the village in memory of his father, by Skandagupta. In the words of Goyal on p. 49 .

"one would hardly expect that Skandagupta chose a region other than his home province for such a pious act the aim of which was "to increase the religious merit of his father"

In Goyal's estimation, a Prashasti type of document has not been recorded in the Gupta Era in a region outside of the centre/origin of the hedgemon's power, pointing to the Mandasore inscription of Yashodharman. Furthermore, the dating and numbers of the inscriptions speak for themselves as to the veracity of Prayag and Saketa being close contenders for early Gupta rule and origin. Specifically, Allahabad itself, is a strong candidate, corroborated by the Vayu Purana evidence, says Goyal on p. 50 :

"Kings born of the Gupta family will enjoy all these territories along the Ganges viz. Prayag (Allahabad), Saketa (Oudh) and Magadha (South Bihar)"

As Prof. Goyal points out on p. 51;
"The corresponding passage in the Vishnu Purana is slightly, though significantly , different :

Anu-Ganga Prayag am Magadha Guptas-cha bhokshyanti

It has been translated by Majumdar as follows : "the territory along the Ganges up to Prayag will be enjoyed by the people of Magadha and the Guptas"

Goyal points out that this passage not only distinguished the Magadhas from the Guptas but implies that the later Magadhas and the Guptas ruled over the territories along the Ganges upto Prayag. He goes on to show that Magadha in this time belonged to the Lichahhavis, and given this fact, the Prayag territory can be the only logical homeland of the Guptas, hence as Goyal says on p. 53 :

"The Pashupati temple inscription of Jayadeva II of the Lichchhavi dynasty dated in the year 153 states 23 generations before Jayadeva I, his ancestor Supushpa Lichchhavi was born at Pushpapura which probably refers to the city of Pataliputra. Now, if Fleet’s dating of the Nepal epigraphs is correct, Supushpa flourished in the first century A. D. Though it does not prove that Lichchhavis occupied Pataliputra in that period (as some scholars believe ), it does suggest that they were living and taking an active interest in the city. The evidence of the Vishnu Parana cited above proves that ultimately they succeeded in occupying it some time before their chief contracted a matrimonial alliance with the Guptas in the beginning of the fourth century A. D."

Who Were The Guptas?

For historians, students of history, academics and pedestrian observers of history alike, the establishment of the communal or social identity of eminent figures and bloodlines of note that have, created a legacy which captures the imaginations of people even today, is, at times, and specifically in the Indian context, an arduos, challenging, significant and consequential venture. Since the determination of social identities for such peoples and groups, plays a crucial role in the self perceptions and projections of social groups today. It is this politically loaded aspect of this subject of history which leaves novel research in the subject, slow and stagnant.

We shall attempt here, to review some theories and arguments forwarded by prominent historians of the last century, whose works have allowed us to chart a course to the original homeland of the Guptas earlier. Once again, we do not attempt to make conclusive claims with regards to the questions raised here, we shall however try to analyse the theories proposed by past scholars in the earnest and provide a conclusion that we find agreeable.

Guptas as Vaishyas :

The theory that the Guptas were Vaishyas, may seem to be a strong and obvious foregone conclusion for many readers of popular history. This seemingly faultless speculation rests on popular ideas about caste and society, namely that the suffix "Gupta", was historically used by members of the Vaishya caste, as it is today. And such observations and perceptions can not be considered to have emerged in vacuum. Historians such as AS Altekar, VV Mirashi, SK Aiyangar, also drew similar conclusions based on their understanding and interpretation of primary sources. However, the problems with the theory of Vaishya origin of the Guptas are manifold and we shall try to present them with brevity, but sufficient exploration into their nuances.

We begin first by looking at the basis for this theory, in it's entirety. A principal argument for this assumption is the fact that the Vishnu Purana and the Manusmriti recommend this suffix for the Vaishya caste. For example we quote here, the Vishnu Purana, (transl.) by Manmatha Nath Dutt, 1896, p. 197 :

"Upon the tenth day after birth the father should give a name to the child, the first term of which shall be the name of a god and the second of a man as Sharman or Varman. The former is the proper designatain of a Bráhmin, and the second of a Kshatriya. And the Vaisyas and Sudras should have the designation of Gupta and Dasa. A name should not be devoid of any meaning, should not be indecent, absurd, inauspicious nor dreadful. It shouid contain an even uumber of syllables; it should not be too long nor too short, nor too full of long vowels, but contain a due proportion of short vowels and be easily articulated".

Similar views are shared by Manusmriti II, 31-32;

We do accept that indeed these scriptures assert such rigid rules for the naming of progeny born in respective caste groups, yet we also maintain the postion, in the words of John Allan, in his work Catalogue of the Coins of the Gupta Dynasties and of Sasanka King of Gauda, 1914, p. xiv :

"these rules, however, were by no means inflexible, and exceptions may be quoted"

However, Allan further says, the following on the same page :

"Chandragupta Maurya was certainly of low caste origin, as his name would imply, and it is very possible that the history of the rise of the founder of the Gupta dynasty closely resembles that of the great Maurya"

Therefore, we have as the basis of this theory, the suffix "Gupta" and the idea that the Mauryans provide ample precedence for the rise of Shudras and Vaishyas to kingship. However, this theory is difficult to sustain in the face of the following counter evidence :

While the suffix "Gupta" has been taken as evidence by Altekar, Mirashi, Aiyangar and Allan to suggest mon-Kshatriya and non-Brahmana, Vaishya origin, it's quite perplexing as to why this is, given the fact that during this period, despite the conjunctions of the Manusmriti and the Vishnu Purana, both Brahamans and Kshatriyas utilised the "Gupta" suffix. For example, the astrologer Brahamagupta was a Brahmin, the minister of Chandragupta Maurya, Vishnugupta was a Brahmin as well. Meanwhile, there is little to no indication with regards to the socio-political structure and realities of the period to suggest that the conditions had remained the same and stagnant since the Mauryan era. If anything, the period between the fall of the Mauryans and the rise of the Guptas, had seen the march of triumphant Brahminism take foothold in the Middle Ganga valley. The Shungas, the Kanvas, the Mitras, were successive Brahmin dynasties. This suggests the rise of a martial Brahmin population in this region, which sustained the rise and rule of multiple Brahmin dynasties. In contemporary epics and literature, we further find the glorification of Brahmins and Kshatriyas, with the former being described in the epics as destroyers of Kshatriya rule, all-powerful and revered, for ex - Parshuram, Dronacharya, Ashvathhama in the Mahabharat, feature as unassailable warriors. Similar descriptions do not appear for the Vaishyas or Shudras, during whose political ascension, apparently, according to Allan, these epics were compiled. We also have the case of the Vakatakas and Gautamiputra Satakarni, the Satavahana emperor. In his Nasik prashasti he is called 'Eka-brahmana' i.e The Unique Brahmana and further as Khatiya-dapa-mana-madana, meaning the destroyer of the pride and conceit of Kshatriyas. Once again, such similar examples of Vaishya Emperors are lacking. 

Sunga Dynasty(184 BC-75 BC)

It is also important to state, that the early Guptas such as Maharaja Ghatotkacha do not make use of this suffix. Hence suggesting, that this suffix was added to commemorate their ancestor, Maharaja Sri Gupta by Chandra Gupta I and his successors. 

It is against this socio-political background and the unsustainable theory of the suffix "Gupta" being confirmation of Vaishya origin that we find this theory based on unsustainable principles and evidences.

Guptas As Jats:

The theory that the Gupta kings were Jats was proposed by KP Jayaswal. His argument revolves around the gotra of Gupta princess Prabhavatigupta who was the  daughter of Chandragupta II. He argues that her gotra according to Poona and Riddhapur copper plate grants is mentioned as "Dharana". Since the gotta of her husband Rudrasena II Vakataka was Vishnuvriddha, he claims that the Dharana gotra must be the gotra of her paternal house. To bolster his theory, he further takes the aid of Kaumudimohotsav, in which he identifies Chandasena as Chandragupta I. He says that Chandasena dropped Sena and adopted Gupta instead. His whole argument rests on the fact that in Kaumudimohotsav, Chandasena is described as "Karaskara". KP Jayaswal referred to "Karaskara" as modern day "Kakkar" which is a Jat gotra of Punjab. However,in Baudhayana Dharmasastra "karaskara" has been mentioned as low community.(OP Singh Bhatia, The Imperial Guptas.p137).

This opinion of KP Jayaswal was favoured by Dashrath Sharma who said that Jats of a dharana gotra are still found in the parts of Rajasthan. BP Sinha also states that the Gupta kings belonged to the Jat clan of Mathura. 

KP Jayaswal’s theory sounds inconclusive and vague on several grounds. Talking about his argument based on Dharana gotra, we find several evidences challenging this idea. For example in Kurud Plates of king Narendra, we have reference of Dharana gotra as the gotra of Brahmanas. According to some sources, Dharana was not the gotra of Prabhavatigupta, in fact it was the gotra of her mother Kubernaga. According to Ashwini Agrawal in his book "Rise and Fall of the Imperial Guptas.p74", the identification of Chandasena as Chandragupta I is not accurate. He says that in the play Kaumudimohotsav, Chandrasena was killed along with his progeny and his family was uprooted. This is contrary to the fact that Chandragupta I lived until the old age and after his death his son Samudraguptra assumed the throne. Infact in Allahabad inscription, its clearly mentioned that Chandragupta I was the son of Ghatotkach,( OP Singh Bhatia, The Imperial Guptas.p 17) which again goes again the details provided in the play that Sundarvarma as he had no son had adopted Chandasena as his son. Hence the statement made by KP Jayaswal seems shaky and undigestable. Many scholars like OP Singh, DK Ganguly, RK Mookerji, DR Bhandarkar etc do not concur with KP Jayaswal as well as rejected the historicity of Kaumudimohotsav as the story relevant to the history of the Guptas.

However, the theory of KP Jayaswal, BP Sinha, and Dashrath Sharma can be refuted with a single argument that the Jats themselves migrated from the Indus Valley in the lower Sind to the north east into the Punjab and Multan by the eleventh century. (Against History, Against State: Counterperspective from the Margins. Shail Mayaram.pg 21). After closely looking at the evidences and facts, we have reached to the conclusion that the Gupta kings were not Jats and the arguments provided by KP Jayaswal and others seems untenable. 

Guptas as Kshatriya:

In the popular consensus Gupta kings are generally perceived as Kshatriya. Some scholars have argued that the Gupta kings were Kshatriyas on the basis of their matrimonial alliances with the Licchavis who were Kshatriyas and Nagas who were presumably Kshatriyas. According to this account Chandragupta II got married to Kumaradevi (a Licchavi princess), it is this theory which adds strength to the argument that Gupta kings were Kshatriyas as they preferred marrying to a Kshatriya princess. Dr S Chattopadhya in his "History of Northern India" says Panchobh Copper plate mentions the name of a Kshatriya king Samramagupta, who was a local ruler. He asserts that it is highly probable that he descended from the Imperial Gupta dynasty. Thus, Dr S Chattopadhya claims that the Gupta kings were Kshatriyas. In addition to this, the Guttal king of Dharvad reffered to Vikramaditya (Chandragupta II) as Somvansi Kshatriya. Sirapur prashasti describes Mahasiva Gupta as Kshatriya. "Arya Manushri Mula kalpa" too describes Guptas as Kshatriyas.

In comparison to other theories, Kshatriya being the caste of Guptas has gain relative more traction. But this theory also lacks logical explanation and seems rather vague and hypothetical due to several factors. First of all, the matrimonial alliance of Kumaradevi and Chandragupta II which is basically stated as the foremost evidence to conclude that the Guptas were Kshatriyas could be rejected as the marriage of a High caste male to a lower caste female was prevalent during that period. We have several instances in which a high caste male gets married to a low caste female. So it is not surprising that, the Guptas who were Brahmins (according to this analysis) married to Licchavis who were Kshatriyas. Secondly the argument posed by Sirapur, Panchobh inscription and Manushri Mula Kalpa could be easily ignored considering the fact that having a modicum of similarity in the nomenclature and the suffix Gupta couldn't be considered as the conclusive evidence to say that the Guptas were Kshatriyas. Moreover many historians have already rejected such claims. Therefore, with such strong counter arguments it would be prudent to discard the theory that the Guptas were Kshatriyas.

Source : Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Vol.5 (inscriptions Of The Vakatakas) by Mirashi, Vasudev Vishnu 

Guptas as Brahmanas:

We shall now assess the theory which states that the Guptas were Brahmins. This theory itself comes off as a novel idea in the sphere of popular history, since it has none of the obvious preconception affirming simplicity of the Vaishya theory, based on the suffix of the Guptas, or the added generality of the Kshatriya theory. The Brahmana theory of the Gupta's origin has been propounded by Ashvini Agarwal, SR Goyal, Hemchandra Raychaudhuri and others. This section shall first begin with a refutal of those arguments as may be presented to deny this proposal, followed by and naturally leading to, an argument for the said proposal.

We have already seen that the "Brahmana" theory is as valid as the Kshatriya or Vaishya theory, if based solely on the suffix basis of origin, since in this time period, this suffix, "Gupta", was used by the plethora of the twice-born castes.

Next, we find that the Brahmana theory is strengthened by the fact that the evidence obtained from the Poona plate inscription of Prabhavatigupta, issued during her time as Regent of the Vakataka Empire of which her son was the heir apparent, points towards a Dharana gotra of the Queen. The fact that the Vakatakas belonged to the Vishnuvridhha gotra, [ acc. to VS Pathak, Ancient Historians of India, p. 25 ] illustrates that this Dharana gotra was the same gotra as that of her patrilineal bloodline. Meaning that this gotra was shared by all male members of the Gupta dynasty from the founder to her father. According to Dasharatha Sharma, the Skanda Purana, Brahma Khanda p. 35-37, refers to Brahmans of the Dharana gotra living in Dharmaranya i.e Mirzapur. Having already illustrated that the Jat theory of KP Jayaswal is untenable, we propose that the Dharana gotra refers to the Brahman caste, not the Jats.

    Vakataka Empire(250-500 AD)

Meanwhile, Hemchandra Raychaudhuri, in his work "The Political History of Ancient India", 1953, p. 528 asserts the following argument in favour of the Brahmana origin :

"The origin of the Imperial Gupta family is wrapped up in obscurity. We only know that they probably belonged to the Dharana gotra (IHQ, 1930, 565). They may have been related to Queen Dharini, the chief consort of Agnimitra".

This theory however, has been questioned by RC Majumdar. 

There is one other argument that we need to discuss before concluding on this section of the Brahman theory. This being the argument of matrimonial alliances maintained by the Guptas being presented as evidence against the Vaishya and Jat theories and as evidence of the Kshatriya origin, therefore, a theory which dismisses the Brahmin theory. As has been discussed earlier, the Guptas maintained matrimonial relations with Brahmin and Kshatriya dynasties. The Kshatriya hypothesis asserts that the Kshatriya marriages must be seen as evidence of the Guptas being of equal status as their counterparts. This however, as says SR Goyal, A History Of The Imperial Guptas, 1967, p. 78 :

"The argument is quite forceful. But it is strange to note that so far nobody has bothered to point out that the analysis of the marriage relations of the Guptas makes it equally possible that they belonged to the Brahmana order. For, if we assume that they were Brahmana by caste, these marriage alliances remain in the anuloma category".

"the Talagunda inscription of the Kadamba king Shantivarman we learn that Kakutsthavarman, the great grandson of Mayurasarman, the founder of the dynasty, gave one of his daughters in marriage to a Gupta king. As we have seen, the Kadambas belonged to a Brahmana family who derived their descent from Hariti and belonged to the Manavya gotra.'- Thus, the indication provided by the rule of anuloma and pratiloma marriages is in consonance with the fact that the Guptas were a branch of the Dharana Brahmanas."

This argument, only serves to strengthen the case for the Guptas being Brahmins and strengthens the case further against the Guptas not being Vaishyas or Jats. Goyal further states on p. 80, elaborating how "if the Guptas were Brahmins" they would not give their daughter's hands in marriage to a non-Brahmin groom. From the available evidence, as he illustrates, this again is true. Ashvini Agarwal, agrees and puts forward similar arguments in his works as well.

Thus, based on the evidences available, the rebuttal of possible counter arguments and the arguments presented by historians such as Goyal, Raychaudhuri and Agarwal, we accept this theory as one which presents the most if any merit, that the Guptas were Brahmins.

Conclusion:

S R Goyal(1921-2003)

The empire which lasted for approximately 300 years ended without leaving substantial traces of its establishments. Several questions such as  how it was established, how it was managed, how it grew and eventually weaved a sound monarchical system of governance, but apart from such questions which more or less are explained, one of the  problems that still persists is the doubt regarding the original homeland of the Guptas. Considering the dearth of information we have,it is a very prominent question. For decades many historians have proposed several arguments regarding the place of the origins of the Guptas. However SR Goyal as well KP Jaysawal's argument holds enough logical as well as rational arguments backed up by the evidence such puranic literature, coins, inscriptions which points to Prayag (Allahabad) being the original homeland of the Guptas. 

Several historians for example RC Majumdar and DC Ganguly proposed that they were originally the inhabitants of North Western Bengal and Murshidabad respectively. BD Chattopadhya's Malda (Bengal) being the original land of the Guptas doesn't stand scrutiny based on the available evidence. On the other hand some of the historians such as Hemchandra Raichowdhury and J Allan say that they were the natives of Magadha (Bihar) while BP Sinha is in favour of the Ayodhya-Mathura region being the origin of the Guptas. In the above statements we have tried to analyze the relevant arguments by different historians regarding the original homeland of the Guptas. After analyzing these statements thoroughly, we have arrived at the conclusion that the Guptas are the original inhabitants of Prayag (Allahabad). This theory was bolstered by SR Goyal and KP Jaiswal who have proposed the Prayag (Allahabad) theory supported by available evidences which has been discussed above. It is important to note that we have reached this conclusion after a thorough inspection of the available sources and evidences, and we are open to the possibilities, if something novel springs up in the near future .

A conclusive remark on the origin of the Guptas may yet not be forthcoming from academia, while at the same time the presence of multiple claims and counter claims in popular history mean that novel research and theories, remains bogged down under the weight of political narratives that require the compliance of academic voices and the broadcasting of narratives that suit interest groups. We ultimately don't aim to say here that our conclusions are indeed the final word on the origins of the Gupta Dynasty, however, we do say this, that, we have interrogated the available evidence, we have provided a fair voice to differing theories and have accepted them or rejected them on the basis of their merits. Ultimately, the arguments of Vaishya origin, fail when confronted with the wider context of the time period and thw prevalence of the suffix Gupta among other caste groups. The Jat origin theory was formulated in a time with limited knowledge about the ethnic group, and current research renders the theory untenable. The Kshatriya theory has practically no legs to stand on, save for the argument with regards to the matrimonial relations of the Guptas, which as we have demonstrated, work in favour rather than against the Brahmin theory. Therefore, based on the wider socio-political background as discussed above during the Vaishya theory discussion, the Dharana gotra evidence pointing towards Brahmin populations in UP, coinciding with the homeland theory of the Guptas and the evidence of anuloma marriages which indicate Brahmin status, we conclude that in all possible likelihood, the Guptas were Brahmins.

the end.

NOMADISM IN THE HIMALAYAS AND MODERN DAY PAKISTAN

(A HISTORICAL NARRATIVE)

For 2.5 million years, humans were hunters and gatherers. It is only 10,000 years ago, humans engaged themselves with sowing seeds and rearing animals such as sheep. Prior to that, hunting and gathering was prevalent. During this phase, hunters and gatherers were mobile but their area of movement was limited within small regions. According to Louis Leaky their movements were restricted to specific territories. Tracing the history of these people is an arduous task due to limited information. However, we do know that these groups which usually consisted of 30-50 members were on continuous move in search of food. These hunters and gatherers passed through a process of change and development with the a certain period of time which is called as "The Great Transformation", when the Holocene era began making the weather warmer ushered many changes across the globe. For example, in Europe the snow melted away and forests grew, similarly in West Asia deserts waned and forests grew. This resulted in new adaptation by hunter gatherers. It was during this period that the foragers began cultivating plants. However, they did not settle down. This devised new forms of adaptation which were Pastoral Nomadism and Agriculture. The first evidence of cultivation was found in the Levant with a variety of crops. However, with the advent of the Bronze Age and the emergence of civilizations such as the Indus Valley Civilization, Mesopotamian, Egyptian civilization etc. Agriculture became the central part of the lives of the people. Humans now started settling, the small societies with more spare time started focusing on other aspects of life.

Hunter Gatherers.(source: history.com)

By this time, the hunting and gathering started waning away. Now, the food could be grown, which eliminated the dependence of humans on hunting and gathering which in turn resulted in the formation of Urban societies, which is also termed as "Urban Revolution". The term "Urban Revolution" was coined by Gordon V Childe. He also coined the term "Neolithic Revolution '' in his book Man Makes Himself (1936) in which he stated that this earmarked the beginning of a change from hunting and gathering to a permanent settled phase where humans began cultivating and breeding animals for food. The characteristics features of the Neolithic Revolution being domestication of plants and animals and farming along with the use of pottery, weaving etc. So by this time, humans who were mobile, now became settled. Due to this humans adopted a sedentary lifestyle and relied on farming, which also led to the food sufficiency and surge in the population. This was also a cue for the advent of sedentism. It is crucial to note here that some scholars have rejected the notion of 'Revolution' to signify the change. Gordon V Childe considers food production as the greatest economic revolution after the invention of fire. This clearly led to the sedentary way of living, since the food grown could be stored and used at the time of crisis, people engaged themselves in other productive activities in order to improve their lives. This also resulted in severe change in the pattern of settlement, which as discussed above gave rise to the villages and on a large scale; a civilization. Historically, this shift was possible in most cases due to the domestication of plants and animals. Domestication of animals was the first step towards Pastoral Nomadism. According to Sandor Bokonyi "Domestication is a long and complicated process. It was the culmination of experience and knowledge gained through tens of thousands of generations of hunting and by tracing behavior of wild animals"(History of Humanity).

source: wikimedia

Pastoralism is dependent on the breeding of herd animals which are central to the economy of such societies. Examples of herd animals being sheep, goat, buffalo, yak, horse, camel etc. For the survival of their herd, such societies require pasture land to feed the herds. Hence, the Pastoral society maintains a periodic mobility, moving to specific grazing lands with their herds. Semi nomadic pastoralism is characterized by domestication/breeding of animals along with agriculture as the secondary or supplementary activity. Again, it should be kept in mind that the definition of these terms vary according to the geographical location. For example, in North Eurasia semi nomadic pastoralism includes other economic activities as well. One of the variations which is predominant in semi nomadic pastoralism is the condition in which men move out with the livestock and women are engaged in agriculture. Shifting cultivation could be an excellent example to demonstrate how semi nomadic pastoralism operates. According to Soviet ethnographers the social organization could be divided on two fronts viz; communal ownership of pasture and family ownership of herds. In contrast sedentary farming began in North Western India around 900 BCE. By definition, sedentary farming is a form of agriculture in which the same land is used every year. Generally the farmers are settled and do not move, so the mobility factor remains absent among these societies. Compared to other human societies, pastoral nomads too engaged themselves with outside world. According to A.M Khazanov, pastoralism developed due to interaction with the sedentary agriculturalists. He propounded that nomads could never have existed in "isolation" and their emergence was a late phenomenon that occurred after early Neolithic agriculture became completely sedentary. Also, it formed regional and interregional "interactions" and apparently relied upon external economies via trade, barter etc.

AM Khazanov (Anthropologist and Historian)

**Comparing semi nomadic pastoralism and sedentary farming becomes an area of research and a humongous task in itself. The research in this field is limited which limits the ability to gather more information about the way we could actually compare the two societies and that too bringing them together in the realms of history. Considering the geographical extent of our country and regions asked in the question, the task of framing a comprehensive answer is grueling. There will be always a scope of expansion. Seemingly all regions couldn't be covered considering the extent of geographical locations mentioned. Hence, I will try to cover the answer with respect to socio-political, economic and cultural aspect in addition with the role of modernization and mobility rather than the regional focus. In this way, some of the important regions would be discussed through the spectacles of history.

SOCIO-POLITICAL STRUCTURE :

source: indiabizclub

V A Smith in 1919 proposed that pastoral nomadism was present in Rig Vedic society. This theory received archeological validation from V Gordon Childe in 1924.Eventually,through the writings of D.D Kosambi this found an eminent place in the arena of Marxist Historiography. The Nomadic way of life was seen as barbaric, however the societies of pastoral nomads are not violent, though it appears they conquered territories by force, which is again a matter of thorough investigation. Indubitably, they have founded empires. This enabled the historians to look at social and political institutions of nomadic societies that have been steered by their military characters, by their defense, and cohesion. At times, feudalism was also credited to nomads, it was Vladimir Tov who put forward this theory.(Mongol Nomad Feudalism). L.P Potapov says that nomads passed through three different stages viz; as pastoral nomads, primitive communism, patriarchal society and feudalism. According to Tolybekov, he claims that no feudalism is possible without sedentarization. He rejected the notion of feudalism in nomadic pastoral societies. It is important to mention that Tolybekov himself characterized the nomadic societies as "patriarchal feudalism" though he terms it as "transitional" with feeble feudal traits. Several Western scholars have termed the social structure as "segmentary", with less political centralized, wide distribution of power, feeble political participation and the practice of mutual aid and self defense.

Pastoralists have immensely influenced the course of history. They have hugely influenced the political system of civilizations in India. Also, it's worth mentioning that they were not linked to changing social trends outside their geographical locations. For example: mountain pastoralists of the Himalayas have remained isolated. It is also true that due to this aloofness, we do not seem to have garnered much information about them. WH Newells and Veena Bhasin's study of Gaddis have provided relevant information about them. Similarly we tend to find a bulk of information about Gujjars and Bakarwals of Jammu and Kashmir.

Gujjars of Jammu and Kashmir

Due to environmental and social factors, semi nomadic pastoralism evolved historically in different parts of modern day Pakistan. Baluchistan in west Pakistan is populated by Balouch tribes. Historically, Balouch flocked into the region around 200-250 years ago. These are nomads but also prefer farming to supplement their livelihood. Linguistic and historical evidence suggest their arrival in 1100 AD. Socially, they were engaged as warriors and included in the fighting forces. They were required to serve their leader who was known as "Sardar or Hokam". Due to the scarcity of water, when Balouch people moved here, they turned towards breeding and herding of sheep and goat. According to some sources, they came to Baluchistan for refuge due to power tussles between Safavid, Uzbegs and the Mughal empire. For example people of Salah Koh are Balouch. Since there was no food in the mountains, they wandered and eventually took shelter in political organizations under Hokams/Sardars. Also, they were the best riders as well as fighters who actively raided their adjoining areas for their survival. Hence, traditionally Balouch formed the fighting force of the chiefs. Many of them owned slaves as well, who were generally East Africans and Oman, while others were captured during the raids especially Persians. Strong attachment to their lands is prevalent among Balouch since the time immemorial. Today when sedentary farming has arrived, and modernization has occurred, they have gone isolated. Due to Land Reforms, the area under these tribes has reduced and this has got replaced by sedentism.

HUNZA VALLEY, PAKISTAN

Copyright: Bruno Morandi
                                                  

Similarly, in Pakistan we also witness Hunza Valley as the bastion of semi nomadic pastoralists. Hunza Valley was a central trading route from central Asia to the subcontinent. It is a mountainous region in the northern part of Gilgit Baltistan. In the past, the Burusho tribe used to dwell in the villages called "Khan". The lower valley was populated with Shina speaking settlers who were called Shinaki. Moving slightly towards the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, we happen to witness a perfect example of semi nomadic pastoralism among the Gujjars and Bakarwals. Gujjars appeared in 5th or 6th century AD India which is a conjecture. Actually, we find several historical references and anecdotes about the origin of Gujjars. Here it is none of our concern. The social organization of Gujjars in the earliest times remained nomadic but with the period of time they shifted towards semi nomadic pastoralism.The primary functional unit in their social system is called as "Dera". In contrast to the sedentary population, the lifestyle of these people is tough. They live in "Dhoks" which is a wooden hut surrounded by muds and obviously they lived here with their flocks for a long time. Also since they are semi semi-nomadic, they used to migrate in search of pastures towards Peer Panjal range. Gujjars adopted nomadism because they had to counter the invaders. In "Tareekh e Gujjar" Rana Ali Hasan Chauhan writes, when the Gujjar strengthened their position, they revolted against the Mughals under their commander Ahmed Sultan Gujjar. In 1618 AD when Jehangir was traveling and tried to enter Kashmir, he was stopped by Ahmed Ali Gujjar and was threatened by him. Jehangir, in 1620 defeated Ahmed Ali Gujjar who had declared himself as the ruler of Kashmir. In this battle a large number of Gujjar soldiers were slaughtered. Jehangir also ordered the slaughter and confiscation of their lands from them. Many Gujjars got frightened and hence they fled leaving behind their native land and took shelter in the upper hills of Peer Panjal range to protect themselves from the atrocities of the Mughal army. (Nomadic and Semi Nomadic Tribes - KD Maini).

Gaddis of Himachal Pradesh

The mountains of Himachal Pradesh inhabits the agro pastoral communities. According to B S Parmar(1959) peasants of Himachal prefered to keep large flocks of sheep and goats instead of agriculture. Gaddis of Brahmaur/Gaddis spent most of their year shepherding while some of them also worked as servants in other people's houses. This enabled a mutual relationship and a social interaction between the settled and tribal population of Gaddis. A "warisi" was the hereditary right of a Gaddi family to graze its flock which originated from a title granted by the Raja. (JB Lyall). For this they used to pay fixed rent in cash. A person or warisi used ti to be the "master of the flocks"(mahlundi). The mahlundi used to negotiate with the rulers on behalf of other shepherds obviously for pasture lands. The legitimacy of "warisi" was even recognized by the British officials, hence it could be said that they had a considerable amount of power in their hands. A "Trini" was the grazing tax. Gaddi society, unlike the rest of the nomadic societies, was not egalitarian.

Raikas of Rajasthan

In Rajasthan, we see "Raikas" shepherds. These are the pastoral community herding camels, goats and sheep. Considering the low rainfall and scarcity of vegetation in most parts of Rajasthan, it's quite apparent that Raikas were more involved in pastoralism rather than cultivation or sedentary farming. Raikas in search of pastures used to move from one place to another. They used to move in numbers to almost 50 persons per camp. The leader of the camp was called Nambardar. The second in command of the camp was called as Kamdar. Mukhiya was the leader of the flocks. The first reference to Raikas dates back to the time of Mughal emperor Akbar. In Ain-e-Akbari they are mentioned as camel experts, and in another source it's mentioned that they were the only people who knew how to milk camels. (Ibbotsons) Later on the Maharajah of Rajasthan too established camel corps (shuturkhana) and camel breeding herds (tola). All this was taken care of by the Raikas. Bawarias are also buffalo herding community which used to live near the forests but with time started living in makeshift tents called “Dera”.

Diving deep into the regional population of other regions would be beyond the scope of the answer. More or less the central idea as to how socio-political could be a factor in drawing a parallel between the semi nomadic pastoralists and settled farmers is being conveyed.

ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL STRUCTURE :

Generally speaking, the ethnographic details of the social and political sphere of pastoral life are rich as we have discussed. Khazanov (Nomads and the outside world) says that the economic relationship is dependent upon the private ownership of livestocks rather than ownership of pastures. This means that the livestock in terms of economic value was the most important thing among these people. Also,Khazanov vehemently supports the idea that there was an intricate relationship between the sedentary or settled community and the nomadic tribes which was established by a network of exchange. They used to obtain grain and other products in exchange for their animals. This clearly indicates the presence of a barter system. Khazanov also states that the pastoral economy was unstable and lacked self sufficiency. And hence, it would have never existed without the assistance of the outside world. On the other hand their economy which revolved mainly around pastoralism proved to be quite efficient in the sense that it was able to provide a stable food producing economy in arid, semi arid, and tundra zones. This also means that pastoral nomadism can be seen as an alternative subsistence system suited to regions otherwise unsuitable for plant based agriculture (Galaty and John) . Herd animals are an asset to their owners. Khazanov views" pastoral nomadism as a food producing economy based on animal husbandry". According to Marxist Historians, the Rigvedic economy was based upon pastoralism. R S Sharma termed this economy as marked by loot and herding. It should be noted that agriculture was mentioned in the sixth book of Rigveda and refers to an urvara providing subsistence to a thousand people. But I believe this can't be explained in terms of pastoralism.

Pasture Land, Himalayas

For semi nomadic people, the control over pasture was important to fuel their economy, since their economy hinged upon their assets which were animals/herds. During the Mughal times, the grazing rights were fairly well developed. One of the primary sources which corroborates this is Ain-e-Akbari which states that tax was paid on cattles, if the person was not a cultivator. It's pretty apparent that these provisions were meant for the nomadic people. In certain regions usufructuary rights were apparent during this time. One such area was Chamba of Himachal Pradesh, where land grants were quite common, and ultimately these lands were used as pasture land by nomadic people. These lands were donated by the Rajahs or the rulers. Also, reserved land was fairly common in the region which was called Ghali. For example the Land of Gaddi shepherds was called Ghali. This also points to the fact that the pasture land was depleting during this period. Historically, the mountainous people were accustomed to trade and transportation which relied upon animal husbandry as well. Initially, they did not practice crop cultivation to supplement their economy, later on they resorted to cultivation. A "trini" was levied in the regions of Chamba of Himachal. Migratory flocks of professional shepherds had to pay more taxes than the local peasants. Trini was collected in the form of wool or sheep and goats. Gaddi who were primarily shepherds passed through a number of villages while moving from one place to another. These villages provided them with resources but at the same time they used to charge a fee from Gaddis especially those villages which were located near the mountain passes or river crossings. Also, during the winter season, these flocks were used by peasants to manure their fields. For this the shepherds were paid a handsome amount by the peasants. This proves the point that the nomadic tribes and sedentary farmers were interdependent upon each other in many ways. The imposition of Forest Laws by British colonial government had immensely affected the economy. The practice of taxing the goats and sheep was dominant under the British rule. The tax allowed the flocks to graze, somewhat like modern day toll taxes.

In the Hunza Valley, one of the major sources of revenue was taxation on livestocks. Every summer, Khirgiz nomads used to come for fresh pastures, since they used to travel to a territory which they didn't own; they were obliged to pay grazing taxes to the Mir. It is interesting to note that Mir Silum Khan III expanded his territory to accrue more benefits out of taxations. But on the flip side it also discouraged animal husbandry in the Hunza Valley. Hence, the population of these tribes reduced or it won't be wrong to say that they resorted to some other occupation. Talking about Baloch, historically, they used to supplement their subsistence by regular raiding. In maintaining their relationship with the settled peasants of the region, economy did play an important role. Due to the unavailability of natural resources and flooding in the region, it was difficult for the Baloch to survive on agriculture. Also, for a significant period of time they remained too isolated from the neighboring areas. Point with the passage of time, their economy got hitched to settlers. For example, the peasants needed clarified butter and the nomads needed dates. So there was an exchange which might have had an impact not only in fueling their economy but also to frame a socio-cultural bond with the settlers.

Baloch People, Pakistan

Gujjars of Jammu and Kashmir, have retained their unique lifestyle, and for the centuries their main source of livelihood and economy is fueled by dairy and animal products. In Rajasthan, Raikas too employed themselves with the Maharajahs to supplement their pocket and to sustain they were primarily dependent upon their flocks. Some of the points about them have been already covered, for example they were employed by the Rajahs. Since they reared sheep, it's very common that they too developed their interdependence on the locals. Historically, they were the ones who used to sell their sheep and sheep products such as wool.
Nomads do not seem to have much influence on the culture, since they lived their life in isolation. Many times, they were despised by the local populations. This hate reached its culmination during colonial rule when the British considered them as culturally backwards. Again, it's quite obvious that semi nomadic pastoralists and sedentary farmers followed different cultures,and differed in their beliefs, customs and practices. With the rise of colonialism and nationalism, these nomads were seen as primitive subjects. Tom Allsen has portrayed a complex picture of the relations between nomads and the societies. He showed that "the nomads significantly contributed to cross cultural exchange as active participants who transferred elements from one civilization to another". It is worth noting that the nomadic culture was never isolated, because of their mobility and interactions with the sedentary population. Thus it could be said that, historically, nomads acted as the agent of cultural change. Gujjars have rich cultural heritage, they have their own language "Gojri" which is a derivative of Indo-Aryan language. They have their own costumes, food habits. Bawarias of Rajasthan have their distinct culture and religious beliefs than the local communities. According to Rao and Casimir, when communication and roads were limited, nomads played an important role as carriers of news, goods and resources from other societies.

MOBILITY AND MODERNIZATION :

Historically, we could say the hunter gatherers were "wanderers". They moved from one place to another, gathered food, and hunted animals. With the passage of time especially, with the Neolithic Revolution, emergence of settlement occurred, and then of course rise of civilizations. It is interesting to note that mobility attained a central theme in drawing distinction between settled and nomads. Semi nomadic pastoralism is characterized by mobility, for example the mountain pastoralists like Himalayan Pastoralists who move from the lower valley to upper and upper valley to lower valley seasonally with their flocks. This pattern of movement defines them. Elaborating the concept of mobility would be again beyond the scope of answer which would only make this writing lengthy and repetitive. Also, I have drawn a distinction between wanderers and nomads already, plus we all know that many nomadic societies grew into large empires due to their military conquests and expansion. Sheep and goat pastoralism is a feature of traditional mountain societies. Gaddis, Gujjars, Bakarwals, Balochs, Kaulis etc followed the traces of resources for their flocks and this whole process was chiefly characterized by their mobility patterns. A large variety of pastoral systems are classified by the degree of mobility. According to Khazanov and Arbos, the extent of mobility was inversely proportional to the sedentarization. Thus, the mobility decreased with increase in sedentary activities. The settled phase where sedentary activities increased. Centuries after centuries people started settling down. One of the key factors in determining this was Modernization with its sub factors being industrialization, colonialism and nationalism. Modernization paved the way for the rise of many settled communities, still the nomads chose to remain isolated. However, some of them simply absorbed themselves in search of new opportunities and livelihood. For example, Balochs became warriors for their chiefs. Raikas also became servants of the Rajahs of Rajasthan. Bawarias became chowkidars. Also with modernization many forests were cut down, and many nomadic tribes were shifted from the native place to elsewhere. Example: Balochs and Gaddis. The concept of taxation was introduced which again deprived many nomadic communities of their native regions. Modernization remains an alien concept for most pastoral nomads, and the planning and policies of government are aimed at pastoralists. Until these nomadic groups remain isolated and primitive and refuse to become an integrated part of modern society, they won't be able to connect themselves with development.

copyright:pixels.com

Sources:
~Nomads and the Outside World (AM Khazanov)
~Sapiens (Yuval Noah Harari)
~A History of Ancient and Early… (Upinder Singh)
~Early India ( Romila Thapar)
~Nomads as the agent of Cultural Change (Amitai and Biran)
~Archaeology and the Rigveda ( RN Nandi)


Suggested Readings;
~Debates on Nomadic Feudalism ( Ernst Gellner)
~Nomadism in Balochistan (Brian Spooner)
~The Gujjars Vol 06 (Javaid Rahi)
~Constructing the Peasant society of Rigveda (Vijay Kumar Thakur)
~Pastoralists of Himalayas (Veena Bhasin)
~Mobility and Cooperation.. The case of Raikas (Arun Agarwal)
~Pastoral nomadism in the Archaeology of India and Pakistan (Lawrence S. Leshnik)
~Nomadic Hunting Community of Eastern Rajasthan (Bahar Dutt)
~Pastoral people and Shepherding Practices in Western Himalaya (Chetan Singh)
~Mountain Pastoralism (Montero, Mathieu and Chetan Singh)