8. Evolution of Maurya, Bhumihar and Sainthwar Communities

8.8 Evolution of Mall - Sainthwar community

The population numbers, area of settlement and myths of their origin as captured in the census data and their correlation with the ancient republics help to understand the evolution of community in a concrete way.

8.8.1 Kurmi Origin

In early census, the Sainthwars were considered as part of Kurmi community and hence representing the view of majority of orthodox Brahmins and the allied castes, especially Bisen Rajputs of Majhauli, towards them. Before going into detail about the Kurmi lineage of Sainthwar, it is better to understand who the Kurmis are. The Kurmis are one of the best agricultural communities of entire northern India, Assam, Bengal and central India with a recorded population of 3,785,998 in the census of 1921 and therefore having a population of approximately 17 - 20 million (1.7 – 2.0 crore) in the year 2011. The Kurmis along with the Koiris can be termed as a source of food for the entire northern and central Indian society. The word Kurmi is very likely to be a combination of Krishi and Karmi (agricultural worker). Other definitions include it to be derived from Kurma, the tortoise reincarnation of Lord Vishnu or Krsmi, the ploughman. The early Indian census clubbed some of the communities of northern India having the occupation of agriculture, but not having any social ties with Rajputs, under Kurmi caste. The move was resisted by many including the Malla-Sainthwars of Gorakhpur and the Awadhiyas of Bihar. The latter claimed Kshatriya lineage but said to be parted away from the Brahmanical Kshatriyas after acceptance of Buddhism during the period of Ashoka. The claim of Awadhiya community is supported by the notes of the Indian Census commissioner, Sir E.A. Gait [6], which state that all connections is denied between the Awadhiya sub-caste and other classes who go by the name Kurmi and they rank higher than the rest of Kurmis. Regarding Awadhiyas, Kumar Suresh Singh is of the opinion that ‘though in practice Awadhiya Kurmis of Bihar are related to the territories of Ayodhya, they derive their name from Ayudhya mentioned in the Arthshastra. Chanakya refers to Ayudhya (land supply troops), indicating a class of Jagir holders, who in return of the revenue, supplied the Mauryan king with troops for the performance of the military services. Lallanji Gopal suggests that the expression ayudhya points to a village noted for the large numbers of soldiers recruited from them and thus entitled to certain concessions [7]. The classification of the Awadhiya under Kurmi caste by the census, in spite they differed from the rest of Kurmi population historically as well as socially, was not a unique case. There were many communities who had fallen from the rank of Kshatriya to the level of agricultural Kurmi class in view of orthodox Brahmins and Kshatriyas because of acceptance of agriculture as their occupation or Buddhism / Jainism as their faith. Although there was resistance from a few communities regarding wrong classification, others formed an association of ‘All India Kurmi Kshatriya Mahasabha’ in 1910. The association claimed Kshatriya status by tracing their lineage to King Rama through his son Lava (which again is a myth only far away from the reality as discussed in section 8.1.)

The Kurmi origin of the Mall-Sainthwar is seen in the traditions of Majhauli Raj. The myths show the lineage of Mall titled populations of Sainthwar from Indradhawan Mall, son of Brahmin Mayur Bhatt from a Kurmi woman. It also shows the lineage of Bisen Rajputs of Majhauli from Bisva Sen, son of Mayur Bhatt from his Suryavanshi wife Suryaprabha. According to the traditions of Majhauli Raj, substantiated from the family Brahmin priest, the clan had total 113 rulers starting from Bisva Sen to Raja Udaynarayan Mall of 1874 AD. The family adopted ‘Mall’ title in 11th century AD when 80th descendant, Hardeo Sen, got the title of Malla from Delhi sultanate on account of his bravery [8]. After analyzing the myth and the long list of Kings, the first impression comes that it is an ‘untrustworthy historical document’. Further if one assigns average 20 years ruling period for each king, the birth of Bisva Sen can be traced back to somewhere around 4th century BC. During that period, the social position of the Brahmins in ancient Gana-Sangha was inferior to Kshatriyas and the former belonged to Dasa-Karmakara Varna that included all other communities except Kshatriyas. The son born of Brahmin father and Kshatriya mother was given the social status of Brahmin and Kshatriyas never accepted them [9]. In addition to this, historians trace Mayur Bhatt’s origin to the courts of King Harshavardhana (7th century AD), a gap of almost 800 years from the traditions prevalent in the Majhauli Raj. It is, therefore, not surprising that the claim is contested by Atkinson, Nevill and G.N Dutt who traced the founding of Majhauli Raj around 1100 AD. The Bisen family chain, validated by the family priest, is not the only false family chain in India but it was a well known practice in medieval India being followed by the ruling clans to show their superiority over other Kshatriya clans. The myth of origin from the Brahmin Mayur Bhatt is further challenged by the population number of Bisen Kshatriyas, Payasi Misras, Bhagochia Bhumihars and the Mall branch of Sainthwar which is 0.4 million (4 lakh) in present time. If a single male or four females are responsible for today’s 0.4 million population, then the entire 1.2 billion (120 crore) population of India can be traced back to approximately 3000 males or 12000 females. It is beyond any logic and therefore the myth of Kurmi origin of Sainthwars or even Bisens from Brahmin Mayur Bhatt is far away from the reality. However, the myth successfully justifies the different social status of all four clans in the orthodox society of northern India. It very nicely utilizes the rule which says that a Brahmin can marry four women, one from each Varna (anuloma marriage) [10].  As the four clans show physical characteristic of Indo-Aryan group of humans, the myth possibly indicates that these communities originated from the common Brahmanical ancestors (Brahmin Mayur Bhatt resembling the Indo-Aryan group of humans) but slowly segregated into two groups and then into four groups due to difference in occupation and religious inclinations (resembled by mothers of four Varna).

Sir Edward Arthur Henry Blunt – the Census Commissioner for year 1911 and Sir Edward Blunt (I.C.S) coined the term ‘fission’ from Kurmi caste to explain the absence of widow marriage in Sainthwar community. However, they were not sure about ‘fission’ comment and therefore used the word ‘more probably’. They principally rejected the presence of any other cause and didn’t take any efforts to understand the real cause. They relied on the common agricultural occupation of both Kurmis and Sainthwars other than getting influenced from the dominant Majhauli Raj. Later Ranjana Sheel, G.S. Ghurye and many other historians took the reference of these remarks and wrote the same thing. Even though EAH Blunt used the term ‘more probably fission’, other authors of non Gorakhpur origin exaggerated it by terming ‘100% fission’. ‘Economic and Political Weekly’ [11] went one step ahead stating that ‘The Sainthwar subcaste of Kurmis in Padrauna, Gorakhpur, which became prosperous, similarly gave up widow marriage and despised Baiswar and Jaiswar kurmis of Sitapur who practised it.’ Practically, it is difficult to imagine that the Sainthwars can suddenly break all their existing social ties with the Baiswar and Jaiswar Kurmis of Sitapur, when the community had a large population of nearly 0.1 million (1 lakh) in 1900 AD and therefore proportionate number of social ties. Further, Gorakhpur province had a large population of Kurmis against Sainthwars (total 171,005 vs 59,823 as per 1865 census). It seems illogical that the Sainthwars, barring the Kurmis of Gorakhpur, will establish social ties with the Kurmis of Sitapur, the region situated more than 300 Km in the north-west of Gorakhpur. The statement, therefore, can be categorized as the author’s imagination who was not familiar with the ground social realities of eastern Uttar Pradesh or the rural India. Moreover, the absence of widow marriage in a population spread over a big geography cannot be achieved in a small period and the presence of such customs reflects its origin from long back. Based on these arguments, it can be said that the classification of Sainthwars as ‘sub-caste of Kurmi’ was based on the myths of Majhauli tradition, non social relations with the Rajputs / Kshatriyas and the involvement of some population in agricultural activities. Although the error was rectified in the later censuses, it still left the legacy for Sainthwars to be known as a caste broken away from their parent Kurmi caste.

8.8.2 Rajput origin

The Rajput origin of entire Mall-Sainthwar populations was first coined by M.N. Mall. It, therefore, represents the sentiments of certain populations of the community regarding their origin. The work of M.N. Mall rejected any possible linkage between today’s Mall-Sainthwar population with the ancient Malla and the other republic Kshatriyas related to Santhagara. It contradicts Dr. Rajbali Pandey’s research work stating that there is no mention of word ‘santhagara’ in ancient or medieval literatures [12]. The work traces lineage of all Malls, classified as Mall caste in the census and living in Mau (earlier Azamgarh) district, from the Raja Madhav Mall of 1564 AD who belonged to the Bisen Kshatriya family of Majhauli Raj. It relates Mall titled populations of other districts with Malls of Mau stating that the former were migrated as soldiers of the Majhauli Raj around 17th century AD. According to his works, the Bisen Kshatriyas ruled from Kakradih (today Natthapur region of Mau) during the Harshavardhna era before they shifted their capital to Majhauli in Deoria. After the division of the Majhauli estate during the period of Akbar, Raja Madhav Mall of the ruling family got the surrounding area of Kakradih to which he renamed as Madhuban after his name. The capital of Madhuban became Natthapur after the name of the Raja Nattha Mall who was the son of Madhav Mall. Around 1740 AD, a major dispute took place in Bisens over the last rites of Raja Bodh Mall of Majhauli. Bodh Mall died as a Muslim (as Raja Salem) after his forceful conversion in the courts of Aurangzeb. As per the wish of Raja, Majhauli performed his last rites according to Hindu customs to which the Bisens of Madhuban, Gonda and Kalakankar estates resisted. At the end, all the three pattidars (kinship) boycotted the brahmabhoj ceremony of Raja Salem. In later period, the Bisens of Majhauli refused to normalize the family relations with all pattidars by not eating bhat (rice) together and therefore denying any ancestral linkage between them. After some period, they re-established their kinship ties with the Bisens of Gonda and Kalakankar estates but refused with the Bisens of Madhuban. This resulted in segregation of the Bisens of Madhuban from the mainstream Rajput communities.

The family tree of the Mall’s (Bisen) of Madhuban, as constructed by the author, shows most Mall villages of the Mau district descending from the grandsons of Madhav Mall named as Harihar Mall and Ajit Mall who possibly lived around 1640 AD. The family tree shows nearly 30-40 male descendants in various Mall villages till 1740 AD. As there was no rift between the Bisens of Majhauli and Madhuban by this period, most Mall families must be having social ties with the mainstream Rajputs other than having with the Gaharwars of Padrauna and the migrated Rajputs belonging to Mahabhat Khan’s 1626 rebellion. It is hard to believe that suddenly all Rajputs broke their social ties, including the already established social ties, with the Malls of Madhuban under the pressure from Majhauli estate. Another question comes that when the family of Majahuli broke its kinship ties with all three Bisen families, then why only the Malls of Madhuban were isolated from the broader Rajput community? From population angle, his works too violates some basic rules of nature as it questions approximately 15,000 Mall titled population in Mau district in the year 2011 from the single family of Raja Madhav Mall of 1564 AD. The surprisingly larger population of the Mall of Mau than the Mall of Majhauli was also recorded by Atkinson in 1880 AD even though the myths traced their origin from the common ancestor. If Mall populations of other districts are counted together, then the number will spurt to nearly 25,000. If one considers the family tree true, then it will be a very high growth rate for any single family and no match with the growth rate of the entire region or state or country. Such high population, over a period of 350 years, is possible only if the population of Madhav Mall clan grew at the rate which was even more than the rate with which the entire population of India was growing in the period of 1961-1991. This can be then a hypothetical case of population explosion happened between 1564 and 2011 for a single family irrespective of its surrounding environment. Also, the origin of all Mall titled populations from Madhav Mall is strongly contradicted by the presence of the Gaharwar Rajput family of Padrauna. The first ancestor of the Padrauna family was Bhual Rai. He was contemporary of Madhav Mall and was in his direct family relation. According to historical documents, the Majhauli King gave zamindari of 5 villages around Padrauna to Bhual Rai and his 50 associates around 1581 AD. In present time, the population of these Gaharwar Rajputs, popularly known as Raikar, is thickly settled in a few villages like Semra, Bishunpura, Shivrajpur and Sekhwania and a scattered population is found in few other villages with chief family ruling over the Padrauna estate. Based on these arguments, it can be said that the family tree is false and a great level of ancestral overlapping has been done corresponding to the period of 1630-1650 AD so as to prove that all Mall titled populations living in Natthapur Pargana have descended from Bisen Raja Madhav Mall. On the other side, the presence of Madhav Mall and hence Bisen Kshatriya families in Madhuban cannot be denied historically as his son Raja Nattha Mall has been mentioned in Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri as Raja of Majhauli. The only possibility appears here that the small populations of Bisen Kshatriyas, descending from Madhav Malla, got clubbed with large Malla populations (Sainthwar) in the census of 1865. It is, therefore, concluded that the big population of Malls in Natthapur Pargana does not belong to only Bisens of Madhav Mall family but also to a different community (Mall-Sainthwar) that existed in these regions from long back; in agreement with the views of P.C. Mukherjee, Rahul Sankrityayna, Dr. Harinandan Pandey, Dr. Rajbali Pandey and Dr. Raghunath Chand Kaushik.

The work of M.N. Mall traces the ancestry of all humans, known as Sainthwars, from the migrated Rajputs belonging to Mahabat Khan’s 1626 rebellion against Emperor Jahangir. Before discussing the ancestry of the Sainthwar population from migrated Rajputs, it is important to know what history says about this great rebellion.

8.8.2.1 Mahabat Khan and his rebellion

Mahabat Khan was a prominent General and statesman in the court of Mughal Emperor Jahangir. He was also an old and trusted friend of Jahangir. In 1623, he successfully crushed the rebellion of Prince Khurram (Shah Jahan) on the banks of river Tauns (Tons) at Jaunpur with support from local Zamindars [13], Raja Nattha Malla and his brother Fateh Bahadur Malla. The success made Empress Nur Jahan and his brother Asaf Khan worried about the rising power of Mahabat Khan. Nur Jahan first managed to make Mahabat Khan ‘The Governor of Bengal’ which was far from the Mughal capital at Lahore. Later she successfully charged him with disloyal conduct and ordered to return to Lahore to face trial. Frustrated with the continuing conspiracy of Nur Jahan and Asaf Khan, Mahabat Khan decided to take action in 1626. As he was a Rajput by birth, he got good support from his trusted Rajput friends and soldiers who all hailed from the upper part of Punjab and Jammu-Kashmir. Sir H. M. Elliot [14] describes the entire event as ‘Mahabat Khan had cleverly seen through Asaf’s designs, and had brought with him 4000-5000 Rajputs, brave men united in one cause. He had also brought the wives and families of many of them, so that, if driven to extremity, they would fight to the last for the lives and honour of themselves and their families.’

Meanwhile Jahangir and his men were preparing to head to Kabul and were encamped on the banks of the River Jhelum. Mahabat Khan and his forces attacked the royal encampment and successfully took the emperor hostage, however Nur Jahan managed to escape. Mahabat Khan declared himself the new ‘Emperor of India’. However his success was short-lived. Nur Jahan with the help of nobles, who were still loyal to Jahangir, came up with a plan to free her husband. She surrendered herself to Mahabat Khan and once reunited with her husband, put her plan into action. She made Jahangir to convince Mahabat Khan that he was satisfied with the current arrangement as it had freed him from her (Nur Jahan’s) clutches. Mahabat Khan believed that he had won over the former emperor, failing to realize that Jahangir was in fact siding with Nur Jahan. Consequently he decreased the Rajput guards that he had placed around Jahangir and prepared to return to Lahore with the captive emperor. Enroute when some of the Rajputs took their horses for grazing, one of the ahadis guard out of the two was killed. Not getting the satisfactory explanation, a plan of attack was designed by ahadis. Nearly 800-900 Rajputs were slain that day including their most prominent leaders [15]. Meanwhile Nur Jahan arranged for an army to meet them en route to Lahore. In the ensuing battle, Nur Jahan's forces were victorious and Jahangir was freed from captivity. In the battle, Rajputs were slaughtered like goats and few who were captured were sold in the markets of Kabul. An estimated, nearly 2000-3000 Rajputs were killed in this battle and others were wounded heavily. Mahabat Khan's brief reign lasted approximately 100 days.

8.8.2.2 Migration and settlement of wounded Rajputs and their family

The rebellion of Mahabat Khan has been covered in detail by various historians but the wounded Rajput soldiers and their families have been almost forgotten by them. They do not find any mention in the main course of history except in the local traditions and folk stories of the regions where they migrated and settled. According to these stories, the wounded Rajputs along with their families migrated towards various parts of northern india like Agra, Meerut, Saharanpur, Dehradun, Kalinjar, Benaras and Gorakhpur. The migration towards Benaras and Gorakhpur was facilitated by Raja Nattha Mall who was a good friend of Mahabat Khan. Nattha Mall was now zamindar of Natthapur / Madhuban and retired from the responsibilities of Majhauli Raj. In migrated Rajputs, the prominent families belonged to Gaud-Das, Rawat, Sohar Rathod, Mauli - Chauhan, Bhati, Mewati, Parmar, Kotaria, Sisodia and so on. The families lived by suppressing their identity from the fear of Mughal forces and the Rajput zamindars who all were aligned with the Mughal Empire and thus forming a small endogamous group. Meanwhile Shahjahan (Khurram) became new Mughal Emperor after Jahangir. The Bisens of Madhuban faced wrath of the new emperor as Nattha Mall and his brother earlier supported Mahabat Khan to crush his rebellion against Jahangir. Madhuban lost its zamindari and the migrated Rajputs purchased small zamindaris from Majhauli Raj for their livelihood. The migrated Rajputs, according to M. N. Mall, are known as Sainthwar as the chief family of Rajputs, Raja Moti Das, hailed from the "Sihat" paragana of Jalandhar, Punjab. The author lists down various various clans of Sainthwars with chief villages occupied by them in present time and the region to which their ancestors belonged before the rebellion. These regions include Bhakkar (in Pakistan), Gujarat, Punjab, Rajasthan, western Uttar Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir, refer Figure 8.8.2.2. The author correlates various titles used by Sainthwar population with the titles of Rajputs found in these regions and cites Ain-e-Akbari for this [16].

Figure 8.8.2.2: Origin area of Sainthwar Rajputs as per Bisen Vansh Darpan

It should be noted that Ain-e-Akbari does not list down all titles of Sainthwar community as Rajput titles found in the northwestern regions except certain titles like Das, Rawat, Bhati etc. and therefore contradicting the very claim of the author. From the population angle too, the origin of all Sainthwars from the migrated Rajputs cannot be justified. The simple assumption puts the entire Rajput / Kshatriya population belonging to Raja Madhav Mall’s family (BisenMall), Gaharwars of Padrauna and Mahabat Khan’s 1626 rebellion around 5,000 – 6,000 by 1650 AD. The back calculation shows a population figure of 30,000-60,000 around the same period. It, therefore, leads to a large chunk of populations who were mostly agriculturist, inhabited the area before this period and claimed Kshatriya lineage of various sects like Suryavanshi, Chandravanshi and Nagvanshi. The majority population of community inhabiting the current regions from the ancient period gets support from the fact that unlike the Rajputs of the northwestern India, the community population is heterogeneous with the physical traits of Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and Mongoloid races of humans. The claim of only Rajput origin also loses ground as 75- 80% of the community population, belonging to the early 20th century, did not show seriousness to the gotra and clan name opposite to Rajputs who always took pride in such things. Based on these arguments, it can be concluded that the work of M.N.Mall is an unsuccessful attempt to deny any linkage between the present Mall-Sainthwar population with the Buddhist Kshatriyas of Kosala and Malla Mahajanpada in a period when many historians started linking them. However, his work successfully brings out the error in census process which wrongly classified the Rajput populations descending from the families of Madhav Malla, Gaharwars of Padrauna and those participated in the 1626 rebellion under the umbrella of the Mall-Sainthwar caste due to their similar social status i.e. landholding community, the absence of widow marriage and no social relations with the mainstream Rajputs / Kshatriyas.

8.8.3 Origin from the Buddhist republic Kshatriyas

Most of the historians, as listed in section 7.2.1, trace the lineage of the larger section of Sainthwars from the ‘Sanstha of Buddhist Kshatriyas of Gana-sanghas’. According to their research, the majority population descended from the Malla and Koliya tribes along with some from the Shakyas, Mauryas and Lichchhavis. The Malla republic of the Buddha period had two political centers – one at Pava and second at Kusinara. The majority populations of both centers were a strong follower of Buddha and Jaina. In present time, the Malla titled population of Padrauna (the ancient Pava) region traces their lineage same as that of Malls found in Natthapur Pargana of Mau district, which is also echoed by P.C Mukherjee and Harinandan Pandey in their research work. Both historians related this section of Malls with the Malla of ancient Pava in whose courts lord Mahavira died. On the other side, the legacy of the Mallas of Kusinara and their association of Kshatriyas consisting of Koliya-Shakyas and some Maurya, Lichchhavi is traced to ‘Sainthwar’ community. The community title Sainthwar is possibly a deformed version of Santhavara (meaning the group of nobles) or Santhagara which was the name of the assembly of republic Kshatriyas. The community title originating from the group structure is confirmed by the fact that when most ancient Kshatriyas lost their Varna position in society after fall of Buddhism, they survived as a small endogamous group following the cultures of twice born community and holding good dominance over land and society. Their ambiguous position in orthodox Brahmanic society is possibly due to following of both Buddhism and Brahmanism simultaneously as mentioned in the Manusmiriti and the medieval history of Nepal. It is, therefore, not surprising that they neither fell into Shudra class completely nor were purified and upgraded as Rajput population but lived as Vratya Kshtriyas in view of the orthodox Brahmins. As Kshatriyas of Gana-sangha were agriculturist in nature, it supports the view of certain sections of society towards them i.e. belonging to the cultivator Kurmi population.

The views of most historians about Sainthwar’s ancient republic Kshatriya origin is validated from the thick population of the community in Gorakhpur province when compared with the population numbers and spread of major Rajput / Kshatriya tribes, refer Table 8.8.3 (projected on the basis of population recorded in the last caste based census). It can be seen that the spread of a Rajput clan over a given geography is directly proportional to its population number, except for the Bisens and Sainthwars. It, therefore, indicates that these two communities are basically groups of different clans who have deep roots in these regions from long time unlike other Rajput clans who were adventurous in the medieval period and moved from one place to another. Within Bisens and Saithwars, the latter has almost 1.7 times more population than the former one but yet settled chiefly in 4 districts only. It, therefore, supports the view of some historians that the Buddhist Kshatriya tribes of neighboring regions, who were already in relation with the Malla of Kusinara and Pava, started assembling under the leadership of Malla of Kusinara to protect their political and religious interests when Buddhism went in the decline phase. On the other side, the smaller population of Srinet, Kaushik and so on, who come under mainstream Kshatriyas, indicate that these clans could have evolved with these names after migration from the northwestern regions or from the small group of Brahmanic Kshatriyas who were not living in the Kosala or Malla Mahajanpada during the Buddha period. The continuous influx of Rajput population in the Gorakhpur province from the northwestern regions in medieval period resulted in the decline of the population strength of the Sainthwars compared to the Brahmanic Kshatriyas and Rajputs. The same is captured by the census of 1865 which records the Sainthwar population nearly half of the Brahmanic Kshatriya / Rajput population. Further the population spread of all these Rajput / Kshatriya tribes, and many more who are not listed here, indicates that Uttar Pradesh (UP) was the center of their civilization from ancient times.

Table 8.8.3 Some Rajput tribes with their approximate population in 2011 across India [17]

8.8.4. Some of the Sainthwar population not of Kshtriya origin

Another tradition prevalent in Rajputs is that some Sainthwars (except the Malla branch) do not have Kshatriya lineage and belonged to some other class who by time promoted themselves to the Kshatriya status with the help of Brahmins. The belief is very similar to that prevalent about Bhumihar Brahmins whereby they are said to be promoted to the rank of Brahmins by the King of Magadha. The belief may have its origin in the large Dravidian-Mongoloids traits in the physical appearance of Sainthwars. Historically, the majority of the Dravidian and Mongoloid population, irrespective of their occupation and except their priestly populations, were considered Shudras only by the orthodox Indo-Aryans. The belief thus indicates that the community is a group of warrior tribes of different human races and not only the Indo-Aryan warriors who are referred as Kshatriyas in the Brahmanic texts.

Concluding, the majority populations of Sainthwar community carry the legacy of ancient Indo-Aryan and aboriginal warriors who turned to atheist faith Buddhism during the Buddha period. They evolved as a community due to their group structure and similar to the Buddhist Brahmins got an ambiguous position in society after the fall of Buddhism. The community also has some Brahmanic Kshatriya / Rajput population in it and they are the BisenMalls of Madhuban, Gaharwars of Padrauna and Rajputs associated with Mahabat Khan’s 1626 rebellion. Though most of the community members continue to deny their Buddhist linkage due to the strong influence of Brahmanism from long time which has declared Buddha and Buddhism as taboo, the community is associated with many historical events pre-Mahabhat Khan rebellion of 1626 AD and some of these they even share with the Mauryas and Bisens like -

- carrying the leagcy of Indo-Aryans who migrated from Kosala under the leadership of Lakshmana's son Chandraketu alias "Mall"
- participated in Mahabharata war from the side of Pandavas
- practiced advanced democarcy in ancient India
- related to the tribe in which Buddha was born
- related to ruling clans in whose courts Buddha and Mahavira took their last breath
- constructed stupas after the Mahaparinirvana of Buddha, of which stupa at Kusinara is an important Buddhsit pilgrimage site
- related to Maurya warrior clan from which the first real emperor of Indian sub-continent came in the form of Chandragupta, Bindusara and Ashoka
- carrying the leagcy of warrior clans who ruled over a vast stretch of land that spread from the Terai belt of Nepal in the north, eastern part of Basti in west, Azamgarh in the south and western Bihar in the east till the Mauryan Empire or even till independance after which they lost control over large lands due to abolition of zamindari system
- carrying the leagcy of Rajputs who took hostage of Emperior Jahangir in 1626 AD.

8.9. The clans and villages of Mall - Sainthwar community - click here to read

********************************************************************************************************************
********************************************************************************************************************

References:
[6]  Gait. E. A. (1903). Report on the census of Bengal, p. 382. India: Bengal Secretariat.
[7]  Singh, K. S. (2008). People of India: Volume 16, Part 2, p. 600. Anthropological survey of India.
[8]  Lethbridge, R. (1893). The Golden Book of India: A genealogical and biographical dictionary, p. 547, (1^st Indian Edition, 2005). Delhi: Aakar.
[9]  Ambattha Sutta of Digha Nikaya – Dialogues of Buddha with Brahmin Ambattha.
[10] Sharma, R. K. (2004). Indian Society Institutions and Change, p. 116. New Delhi: Atlantic.
[11] Economic and Political Weekly. (1997). Volume 32, p. 1716. Mumbai: Samkisha Trust.
[12] Mall, M. N. (2005). Bisen Vansh Darpan, pp. 23-24. Gorakhpur.
[13] Karim, K. M. (1974). The Provinces of Bihar and Bengal Under Shahjahan. p. 33. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, (Bihar) India.
[14] Elliot, H. M. (1867). The History of India as told by its own historians, p 420 (J. Dowson Ed.). London.
[15] The Cambridge History of India, pp. 174-176. , 1958. Cambridge University Press.
[16] Mall, M. N. (2005). Bisen Vansh Darpan, pp. 91,116-117. Gorakhpur.
[17] https://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/17928/IN 

********************************************************************************************************************
********************************************************************************************************************

Index   Chapter 1   Chapter 2   Chapter 3   Chapter 4   Chapter 5   Chapter 6   Chapter 7   Chapter 8   Chapter 9   Chapter 10

Give your feedback at gana.santhagara@gmail.com

If you think, this site has contributed or enriched you in terms of information or knowledge or anything, kindly donate to TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL online at https://tmc.gov.in/ and give back to society. This appeal has been made in personal capacity and TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL is not responsible in any way.

********************************************************************************************************************
********************************************************************************************************************