Chutia kingdom
Medieval state of India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Chutia kingdom[9] (also Sadiya[10]) (Pron: /ˈsʊðiːjɑː/ or Sutia) was a late medieval state that developed around Sadiya in present Assam and adjoining areas in Arunachal Pradesh.[11] The Chutia rulers exercised power by regulating eastward trade and the movement of people between Assam, Tibet, and southern China.[12] It extended over almost the entire region of present districts of Lakhimpur, Dhemaji, Tinsukia, and parts of Dibrugarh (till the Burhi Dihing[13][14]) in Assam,[15] as well as the plains and foothills[16] of Arunachal Pradesh.[17] Some authors have suggested that the kingdom may have extended further west up to Viswanath, corresponding to the region of present-day Biswanath district.[18][19][20] The kingdom fell around the year 1523-24 to the Ahom Kingdom after a series of conflicts, and the capital area ruled by the Chutia rulers became the administrative domain of the office of Sadia Khowa Gohain of the Ahom kingdom.[21]
Deori language
Tribal religion
Chutia Kingdom Also known as Sadhaya or Sadiya সধয়া / স্বধয়া / সধেয়া | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unknown (before Ahom state[1])–1523-24 | |||||||||
Imperial Coat of arms
| |||||||||
 .png){kind=small} Chutia kingdom (Tiwra) in early 16th century[2] | |||||||||
| Capital | Sadhayapura | ||||||||
| Common languages | Assamese language Deori language | ||||||||
| Religion | Hinduism Tribal religion | ||||||||
| Government | Monarchy | ||||||||
| Monarch | |||||||||
• Unknown–1523-24 | Dhirnarayana (last) | ||||||||
| Historical era | Medieval Assam | ||||||||
• Established | Unknown (before Ahom state[1]) | ||||||||
• Ahom-Chutiya conflict | 1513 – 17th century | ||||||||
• Disestablished | 1523-24 | ||||||||
| |||||||||
| Today part of | India | ||||||||
| Rulers of Chutia kingdom | |
|---|---|
| Part of History of Assam | |
| Known rulers of the Chutia kingdom | |
| Nandisvara | late 14th century |
| Satyanarayana | late 14th century |
| Lakshminarayana | early 15th century |
| Durlabhnarayana | early 15th century |
| Pratyakshanarayana | mid 15th century |
| Yasanarayana | mid 15th century |
| Purandarnarayana | late 15th century |
| Dhirnarayana | unknown - 1524 |
| Chutia monarchy data | |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
The Chutia kingdom, believed to be founded in the early 13th century around Sadiya and contiguous areas,[22][1] came into prominence in the second half of the 14th century,[23] and was one among several rudimentary states (Ahom, Dimasa, Koch, Jaintia etc.) that emerged from tribal political formations in the region after the fall of Kamarupa kingdom, between the 13th and the 16th century.[24] Among these, the Chutia state was the most advanced,[25][26] with its rural industries,[27] trade,[28] surplus economy and advanced Sanskritisation.[29][30] It is not exactly known as to the system of agriculture adopted by the Chutias,[31] but it is believed that they were settled cultivators.[32] After the Ahoms annexed the kingdom in 1523-24, the Chutia state & its population was absorbed into the Ahom kingdom through Ahomisation — the nobility and the professional classes were given important positions in the Ahom officialdom[33][34] and the land was resettled for wet rice cultivation.[35]
Foundation and Polity
Though there is no doubt on the Chutia polity, the origins of this kingdom are obscure.[36] It is generally held that the Chutias, a grouping of different Bodo-Kachari cognate groups, established a state in the plains around Sadiya before the advent of the Ahoms in 1228.[37][1] Although Buranjis, the Ahom chronicles, indicate the presence of a Chutia state,[38] the evidence is scarce that it was of any significance before the second half of the 14th century.[39] Scholars have noted, however, that this lack of recorded interaction may be due to the early Ahom state itself being precariously small.[40]
Among the Chutia rulers known from epigraphic records, the earliest attested is Nandin or Nandisvara, who appears in inscriptions from the latter half of the 14th century.[41] Nandisvara is mentioned in a grant by his son Satyanarayana, as the lord of Sadhayāpurī (sadhayāpurīśa), while Satyanarayana himself is described as drawing his royal lineage from the Asuras, the “enemies of the gods”.[42] The mention of Satyanarayana as having the shape of his maternal uncle (which is also an indirect reference to the same Asura/Daitya lineage)[43] may also constitute evidence of matrilineality of the Chutia ruling family, or that their system was not exclusively patrilineal.[44] On the other hand, a later king Durlabhnarayana mentions that his grandfather Ratnanarayana (identified with Satyanarayana) was the king of Kamatapura[45] which might indicate that the eastern region of Sadhaya was politically connected to the western region of Kamata.[46]
In these early inscriptions, the kings are said to be seated in Sadhyapuri, identified with the present-day Sadiya;[47] which is why the kingdom is also called Sadiya. The Buranjis written in the Ahom language called the kingdom Tiora whereas those written in the Assamese language called it Chutia.[9]
Brahmanical influence in the form of Vaishnavism reached the Chutia polity in the eastern extremity of present-day Assam during the late fourteenth century.[48][49] The copperplate grant of Chutia kings begin with salutations to Ganesha.[50] Vaishnava Brahmins created lineages for the rulers with references to Krishna legends but placed them lower in the Brahminical social hierarchy because of their autochthonous origins.[51] Though asura lineage of the Chutia rulers have similarities with the Narakasura lineage created for the three Kamarupa dynasties, the precise historical connection is not clear.[52] Although a majority of the Brahmin donees of the royal grants were Vaishnavas,[53] the rulers patronized the non-brahmanised Dikkaravasini[54] (also Tamresvari or Kechai-khati), which was either a powerful tribal deity, or a form of the Buddhist deity Tara adopted for tribal worship.[55] This deity, noticed in the 10th century Kalika Purana well before the establishment of the Chutia kingdom, continued to be presided by a Deori priesthood well into the Ahom rule and outside Brahminical influence.[56]
Spurious accounts
Although there are many manuscript accounts of the origin and lineage, these do not agree with each other and are legendary in nature, and therefore have no historical moorings.[57][58] One such source is Chutiyar Rajar Vamsavali, first published in Orunodoi in 1850 and reprinted in Deodhai Asam Buranji.[59] Historians consider this document to have been composed in the early 19th century—to legitimize the Matak rajya around 1805—or after the end of Ahom rule in 1826.[60] This document relates the legend of Birpal. Yet another Assamese document, retrieved by Ney Elias from Burmese sources, relates an alternative legend of Asambhinna.[61] These different legends suggest that the genealogical claims of the Chutias have changed over time and that these are efforts to construct (and reconstruct) the past.[62]
Rulers
Only a few recently compiled Buranjis provide the history of the Chutia kingdom;[63] though some sections of these compilations are old, the sections that contain the list of Chutiya rulers cannot be traced to earlier than 19th century.[64] Some scholars, therefore, questioned the accuracy of the historical information in these accounts and showed great disdain for the related legends.[65]
Neog (1977) compiled a known list of rulers from epigraphic records based crucially on identifying the donor-ruler named Dharmanarayan, mentioned as the son of Satyanarayana in the Bormurtiya grant[66] with the Dharmanarayan, the father of the donor-ruler Durlabhnarayana of the Chepakhowa grant.[67] This effectively results in identifying Satyanarayana with Ratnanarayana.[68]
| Name | Other names | Reign Period | Reign in Progress |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nandi | Nandisara or Nandisvara | late 14th century[70] | |
| Satyanarayana | Ratnanarayana | late 14th century[70] | 1392[71] |
| Lakshminarayana | Dharmanarayana | early 15th century | 1392;[72] 1401;[73] |
| Durlabhnarayana | early 15th century | 1428[74] | |
| Muktadharmanarayana[75] | mid 15th century | 1442[76] | |
| Pratyaksanarayana[77] | |||
| Yasanarayana[77] |
A late discovery of an inscription, published in a 2002 souvenir of the All Assam Chutiya Sanmilan[78] seems to genealogically connect the last historically known king, Dhirnarayan with Neog's list above.
Though it is accepted that the rule of the Chutia rulers ended in 1523-24,[81] different sources give different accounts.[82] The extant Ahom Buranji and the Deodhai Asam Buranji mention that in the final battles and the aftermath both the king and his son;[83] whereas Ahom Buranji-Harakanta Barua mentions that the remnant of the royal family was deported to Pakariguri, Darrang.[84][85]
Domain
The extent of the power of the kings of the Chutia kingdom is not known in detail.[86] Nevertheless, it is estimated by most modern scholarship that Chutias held the areas on the north bank of Brahmaputra from Parshuram Kund (present-day Arunachal Pradesh) in the east and included the present districts of Lakhimpur, Dhemaji, Tinsukia and parts of Dibrugarh (till the Burhi Dihing[87][88]) in Assam[15][89] along with the plains and foothills of Arunachal Pradesh.[11][90] Between 1228 and 1253 when Sukaphaa, the founder of the Ahom kingdom, was searching for a place to settle in Upper Assam, he and his followers did not encounter any resistance from the Chutia state,[91] implying that the Chutia state must have been of little significance till at least the mid 14th century,[92] when the Ahom chronicles mention them for the first time. However, it is also known that the Ahoms themselves were a people with a precariously small territory and population, which may indicate this absence of serious interaction with the old settled people of the neighborhood until the 14th century.[93] Some scholars have suggested that Chutia authority extended westward as far as the Viswanath area, in present-day Biswanath district of Assam.[59][94][95] Its principal area of control, however, appears to have been concentrated in the river valleys of the Subansiri, Brahmaputra, Lohit and Dihing, and to have extended only marginally into the hills even at its zenith.[96] Evidence of a wider, possibly temporary political connection farther west has been inferred from the 1428 copperplate grant of Durlabhnarayana, which states that his grandfather Ratnanarayana became king of Kamatapur. Maheswar Neog identified Ratnanarayana with the ruler of Sadhayapuri and proposed that Sadiya and Kamatapur may at one time have been politically connected under the same dynasty.[97]
Early contacts and downfall
Contacts with Bengal and Kamatapura
A tradition associated with Gharmora Satra links the Chutia royal family with Nabadwip in Bengal. According to the tradition, preserved by the custodians of the Satra, two Chutia princes received their education at Nabadwip, where they met Sankarshan, a Brahmin from Kannauj. After returning to Sadiya, the elder prince succeeded to the throne and brought Sankarshan, along with families of different occupational groups, to establish a religious institution on the bank of the Gharmora River; the king is also said to have granted it land, dependants and an image of Vishnu.[98]
A possible western political connection is also suggested by the Sadiya–Chepakhowa copper-plate grant of 1428, which describes Durlabhanarayana as the son of Dharmanarayana and grandson of Ratnanarayana, styled king of Kamatapura. Maheswar Neog proposed that Ratnanarayana was identical with Satyanarayana of the Sadhayapuri grants, whose son is named Dharmanarayana in the Bormurtiya inscription. On this interpretation, the records indicate a dynastic link between Sadhaya and Kamatapura, although the identification and the nature of the connection is not known clearly.[99]
The grant includes a verse concerning Ratnanarayana, which was deciphered by Maheswar Neog with the assistance of Sanskrit scholars[100]:
- Ekuha bhūt Kamatāpure narapati bhūpāla-varārcitaḥ
Kandarpa-pratipakṣa-lakṣa-vijayī Śrī Ratnanārāyaṇaḥ.
The Assamese translation published in Chutia Jatir Buranji (2007) renders the verse as: “There became a king in Kamatapura, one who was worshipped by kings, victorious over 1 lakh enemies of Kandarpa(another name for Kamdeva), Śrī Ratnanarayana.”[101]
Shan incursions (14th century)
According to Tai and Shan chronicle traditions, Sam Long Hpa (Samlonhpha), ruler of Mongkawng, led a westward campaign into Upper Assam, referred to in the chronicles as Mong Wehsali Long. One version preserved in the Mogaung chronicles states that he conquered much of the territory then under the sway of the Chutia (Sutya) kings, while another recounts the submission of Wehsali and the arrangement of tribute payments.[102][103] The chronicle account does not state whether the promised tribute was subsequently remitted. In a later episode of the Hsenwi chronicle tradition, Sam Long Hpa was said to have been poisoned after his return to Mongkawng, although another version reported that he escaped to China.[104]
Although traditional chronologies place these events in the early 13th century, modern scholarship generally associates them with the mid-14th century, possibly around 1350 CE. Christian Daniels dates the emergence of Möng Mao (Mäng Maaw) and Mong Kwang under Sam Long Hpa, as major Tai political confederations, to the mid-14th century, and argues that these expansions are best understood in the context of the political transformations of the Yuan period.[105] Likewise, Sai Aung Tun, drawing upon Shan chronicles, places the zenith of Mao power under Hso Hkan Hpa and Sam Long Hpa in the 14th century and associates their expansion with campaigns extending westward into Assam.[106] Geoff Wade has further argued that the chronology preserved in later Shan chronicles is substantially inflated and that events attributed to Sam Long Hpa likely belong to a considerably later period than traditionally supposed.[107]
Mong Mao's early expansion did not result in a lasting hegemonic order. Following the Ming conquest of Yunnan, Si Lun-fa submitted to the Ming in 1382 and ruled thereafter under Ming patronage; however, Mong Mao remained an important Tai power and renewed its expansion during the 1420s and 1430s. Its political centre was only decisively broken up after the Ming's Luchuan–Pingmian campaigns of 1438–1454, which dispersed its ruling elite and shifted the focus of Tai power westwards towards Mong Yang.[108]
With Ahoms (14th century)
The Buranji contains an earlier tradition of contact between Sukapha's migrating group and local communities, including the Chutias. In this account, the migrating group captured villages during its movement into Assam, and among the people taken along the way were Chutias, Morans and Barahis, who were then assigned names according to the tasks they performed.[109]
The earliest mention of a Chutia king is found in the Buranjis that describe a friendly contact during the reign of Sutuphaa (1369–1379),[110] in which the Ahom king was killed. The Satsari Buranji states that the Ahoms maintained cordial relations with the Chutia kingdom from the time of Sukapha’s sons until Sutuphaa’s death.[111] To avenge the death, the next Ahom ruler Tyaokhamti (1380–1387) led an expedition against the Chutiya kingdom but returned with no success.[112]
Chutia-Ahom conflicts (1512–1523)
Suhungmung, the Ahom king, followed an expansionist policy and annexed Panbari of Habung[113] in 1512, which, according to Amalendu Guha, was a Chutia dependency.[114] In 1513 a border conflict triggered the Chutia king Dhirnarayan to advance to Dikhowmukh and build a stockade of banana trees (Posola-garh).[115][116] This fort was attacked by a force led by the Ahom king himself leading to a rout of the Chutia soldiers. This was followed by the Ahoms erecting a fort at Mungkhrang (located at the mouth of the Dihing river[117]), which fell within the Chutia territory.[116]
In 1520, the Chutias attacked the Ahom fort Mungkhrang twice and in the second killed the commander and occupied it. Towards the end of 1522[118], the Ahoms, led by Phrasengmung Borgohain and King-lung Buragohain attacked it by land and water, recovered it and erected an offensive fort on the banks of the Dibru River. In 1523 the Chutia king attacked the fort at Dibru but was routed. The Ahom king hotly pursued the retreating Chutia king who sued for peace. The peace overtures failed and the king finally fell to Ahom forces, bringing an end to the Chutia kingdom.[119][120] Though some late spurious manuscripts mention the fallen king as Nitipal (or Chandranarayan) the extant records from the Buranjis such as the Ahom Buranji and the Deodhai Ahom Buranji do not mention him; rather they mention that the king and his son were killed.[121]
Legacy
The Ahom kingdom took complete possession of the royal insignia and other assets of the erstwhile kingdom.[122][123] The rest of the royal family was dispersed, the nobles were disbanded and the territory was placed under the newly created office of the Sadiakhowa Gohain.[124] Besides the material assets and territories, the Ahoms also took possession of the people according to their professions. Many of Brahmans, Kayasthas, Kalitas, and Daivajnas (the caste Hindus), as well as the artisans such as bell-metal workers, goldsmiths, blacksmiths, and others, were moved to the Ahom capital and this movement greatly increased the admixture of the Chutia and Ahom populations.[123] A sizeable section of the population was also displaced from their former lands and dispersed in other parts of Upper Assam.[125][126]
After annexing the Chutia kingdom, offices of the Ahom kingdom, Thao-mung Mung-teu(Bhatialia Gohain) with headquarters at Habung (Lakhimpur), Thao-mung Ban-lung(Banlungia Gohain) at Banlung (Dhemaji), Thao-mung Mung-klang(Dihingia gohain) at Dihing (Dibrugarh, Majuli and northern Sibsagar), Chaolung Shulung at Tiphao (northern Dibrugarh) were created to administer the newly acquired regions.[127][better source needed]. In 1527, a new ministerial position named Borpatrogohain was created (borrowed from the Chutia Vrihat-patra),[128] and Klangseng(previously posted as Bhatialia Gohain) was given charge.[129][130]
Firearms
The first specific mentions of extensive use of firearms in Ahom Buranjis are from the reign of Suhungmung;[131] leading to some authors to suggest that the Ahoms acquired the art of using cannons from the Chutias, after the defeat of the Chutias by king Suhungmung.[132] Others have suggested that whereas other powers in Assam and Northeast India acquired gunpowder technology from Burma or China, the Chutias may have acquired gunpowder technology from mainland India[133] or Tibet as well,[134] though the Tibetans are known to have used matchlocks only from the beginning of the seventeenth century, a century after the end of the Chutia kingdom.[135] Some author speculate that the Ahom kingdom, who trace their roots to Tai people of Southeast Asia,[136] may have received Chinese gunpowder technology from that region;[137] and that it already had that technology before their confrontation with the Chutia royal house.[138] Besides Ahoms, Kacharis are also known to have possessed firearms at that time. There are occasional mentions of the Ahom state receiving firearms from the Kacharis at later periods.[139]
Nevertheless, it can be presumed that the Chutia's had the know-how and the materials required for its manufacture.[133] When the Ahoms annexed Sadiya, they recovered hand-cannons called Hiloi[140] as well as large cannons called Bor-top, Mithahulang being one of them.[141][142][143] As per Maniram Dewan, the Ahom king Suhungmung received around three thousand blacksmiths after defeating the Chutias. These people were settled in the Bosa (Doyang) and Ujoni regions and asked to build iron implements like knives, daggers, swords as well as guns and cannons.[144] Most of the Hiloi-Khanikars (gunmakers) in the Ahom khels belonged to the Chutia community.[145] There also existed a class of gunmen in the Ahom army called Sutiya-Hiloidari.[146]