Kabul Shahi - Alberuni and The Myth of Turkic Origins

Alberuni and The Myth of Turkic Origins

Hsuen Tsang clearly describes the ruler of Kapisa/Kabul, whom he had personally met, as a devout Buddhist and a Kshatriya and not a Tu-kiue/Tu-kue (Turk). The Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang knew well enough what a Turk was since he had come to Kabul through their country. Against the contemporary evidence of Hsuen Tsang, an absurd tradition related by Alberuni after 400 years and with evident reluctance and disbelief in it cannot, therefore, be taken for history. The confused accounts of 11th century Persian Muslim scholar Alberuni, ("which bear the impress of folklore for the early history of the Kabul Shahi rulers") state that:

• the Hindu kings residing in Kabul were Turks
• said to be of Tibetan origin
• that the first of them was a Barahatakin (founder of the dynasty), who came (from Tibet) into the country (Kabul), entered a cave and after a few days, started to creep out of it in the presence of people who looked upon him as a "new born baby", clothed in Turkish dress. People honored him as a being of miraculous birth, destined to be a king. And he brought those countries under his sway and ruled under the title of Shahiya of Kabul
• the rule remained among his descendants for about sixty generations, till it was supplanted by a Hindu minister and
• in this series of his descendant rulers, one was Kanik (Kanishaka?) who is said to have built Vihara in Purushapura, which is called Kanika Caitya.

Thus the folklore accounts recorded by Alberuni connect the earlier Shahis of Kabul/Kapisa to Turkish extraction and also claim their descent from Kanik (or Kanishaka of Kushana lineage). At the same time it is also claimed that 'their first king Barahatigin (Vrahitigin?) had originally come from Tibet and concealed in a narrow cave in Kabul area (and here is given a strange legend which we omit).' One can easily see the above account of Shahi origin as totally fanciful and fairy tale-like. These statements taken together are very confusing, inconsistent and bear the express marks of a folklore and vulgar tradition, hence unworthy of inspiring any confidence in the early history of Shahis. The allegation that the first dynasty of Kabul was Turki is plainly based on the vulgar tradition, which Alberuni himself remarked was clearly absurd.

Based on Alberuni's accounts, V. A. Smith speculates that the earlier Shahis were a cadet branch of the Kushanas who ruled both over Kabul and Gandhara until the rise of the Saffarids. H. M. Elliot relates the early Kabul Shahis to the Kators and further connects the Kators with the Kushanas. Charles Fredrick Oldham also traces the Kabul Shahi lineage to the Kators—whom he identifies with the Kathas or Takkhas—Naga worshipping collective groups of solar (Sun-worshiping) lineage. He further speaks of the Urasas, Abhisaras, Daradas, Gandharas, Kambojas, et al. as allied tribal groups of the Takkhas belonging to the Sun-worshiping races of the north-west frontier. D. B. Pandey traces the affinities of the early Kabul Shahis to the Hunas.

The accounts recorded by Alberuni are indeed confusing, but other numerous accounts prove the Kshatriya Punjabi origins of the Shahi dynasty. The Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang knew well enough what a Turk was since he had come to Kabul through their country. Against the contemporary evidence of Hsuen Tsang, an absurd tradition related by Alberuni after 400 years and with evident reluctance and disbelief in it cannot, therefore, be taken for history: Hsuen Tsang clearly describes the ruler of Kapisa/Kabul, whom he had personally met, as a devout Buddhist and a Kshatriya and not a Tu-kiue/Tu-kue (Turk). The fact that Xuanzang (AD 644) specifically describes the ruler of Kapisa as Ksatriya, and that of Zabul at this time being known as Shahi casts serious doubt about the speculated connections of the first Shahis of Kabul/Kapisa to the Kushanas or the Hephthalites. Neither the Kushanas nor the Hunas/Hephthalites nor the Turks (or Turushakas) have ever been designated or classified as Ksatriyas in any ancient Indian tradition. Therefore, the identification of the first line of Shahi kings of Kapisa/Kabul with the Kushanas, Hunas, or Turks obviously seems to be in gross error.

It is very interesting that Alberuni calls the early Shahi rulers Turks, but this should be interpreted to mean Turkised rather than Turkic.