We are Nagas

By Dr Babaheb Ambedkar

A great mistake lies in differentiating the Dasas from the Nagas. The Dasas are same as the Nagas. Dasas is merely another name for Nagas. It is not difficult to understand how the Nagas came to be called Dasas in the Vedic literature. Dasa is a sanskritized form of the Indo-Iranian word Dahaka. Dahaka was the name of the king Nagas. Consequently, the Aryans called the Nagas after the name of their king Dahaka, which in its Sanskrit form became Dasa a generic name applied to all the Nagas.

Who were the Nagas? Undoubtedly they were non-Aryans. A careful study of the Vedic literature revels a spirit of conflicts, of a dualism, and a race for superiority between two distinct types of culture and thought. In the Rig Veda, we were first introduced to the Snake-god in the form of Ahi Vitra, the enemy of the Aryan god Indra. Naga, the name under which the Snake-god was to become so famous in later days, does not appear in early Vedic literature. Even it does for the first time in the Satapatha Brahmana, it is not clear whthere a great snake or a great elephant is meant. But this does not conceal the nature of Ahi Vitra, since he is described always in Rig Veda as the serpent who lay around or hidden in water, and as holding a full control over the waters of heaven and earth alike.

It is also evident from the hymns that refer to Ahi Vitra, that he received no warship from the Aryan tribes and was only regarded as an evil spirit of considerable power who must be fought down.

The mention of the Nagas in the Rig Vida shows that the Nagas were a very ancient people. It must also be remembered that the Nagas were in no way an aboriginal or uncivilized people. History show a very close association by intermarriage between the Naga people with the Royal families of India. The Devagiri record of the Kadamba king Krisnavarma connects the beginning of the Kadambakula with the Nagas. The Royakota grant of 9^th century AD mentions the marriage of Asvathama with a Nagi and the foundation of the Pallava line by Skandasisyya, the issue of this marriage. Virakurcha, who according to another Pallava inscription dated in the 9^th century A.D. was the ruler of the dynasty, is also mentioned in the same inscription as having married a Nagi and obtained from her the insignia of royalty. The marriage of Gautamiputra, the son of Vakataka king Pravarasena, with the daughter of the Bharasiva king Bhava Naga, is a historical fact. So is the marriage of Chandragupata II with Princess Kuvera Naga of Naga Kula. A Tamil poet asserts that that Kokkilli, an early Chola king, had married a Naga princess.  Rajendra Chola is also credited to have won by his radiant beauty the hand of the noble daughter of Naga race. The Navasahasanka Charita describes the marriage of the Paramara King Sindhuraja (who seems to have reigned towards the early part of the 10^th centurary AD) with the Naga princess Sasiprapha, with such exhaustive details in so matter-of-fact-a-manner as to make us almost feel certain that there must have been some historical basis for this assertion. From the Harsh inscription of V.S. 1030-973 A.D. we know that Guvaka I, who was the sixth King in the genealogy upwards from Vigraharaja Chahamana and thus might be supposed to have been ruling towards the middle of the 9^th century “was famous as a hero in the assemblies of the Nagas and other princes.” Sanatikara of the Bhaumn dynasy of Orissa, one of whose dates was most probably 921 A.D., is mentioned in an inscription of his son as having married Tribhuana Mahadevi of the Naga family.

Not only did the Naga people occupy a high cultural level but history shows that they ruled a good part of India. That Maharashtra was the home of the Nagas goes without saying.  Its people and its kings were Nagas.

That Andhradesa and its neighboured were under the Nagas during the early century of the Christian era is suggested by the evidence from more sources than one. The Satavahanas, and their successors, the Chutu Kula Satakarnis drew their blood more or less from the Nagas stock. As Dr. H. C. Roy Chaudhri has pointed out, the Dvatrima satpukalitta represents Salivahana, the mythological representative of the Satavahana dynasty, as of mixed Brahman and the Naga origin. This is the amply attested to by the typical Naga names which occur in their dynastic lists. That the Naga grew to be very powerful towards the end of the Satavahana rule is also proved by number of facts. A chief called Skandanaga is found ruling the Bellary district, in the reign of Pulumavi, the last king of the Satavahana line. Secondly Naga Mulanika the daughter of Chutu king, is mentioned as making a gift of Naga, together with her son, who is called Sivakanda-Naga-Sri. All the know king of this line bear the same name and thus prove a close association with the Nagas. Thirdly, the name of Urapapura, the capital of Soringoi, suggests not an isolated reign of one Naga king bur a Naga Settelment in that locality of tolerable long duration.

From Buddhist tradition of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and Siam (Thailand), we also know that there was a Naga country Majerika near the Diamond Sands, i.e. Karachi

Then during the third and early part of the 4^th century AD Northern India also was ruled by a number of Naga kings is clearly proved by Puranic as well as numismaric and epigraphic evidence. Three independent groups of Vidisa, Campavati or Padmavati and Mathura are distinctly mentioned in such a way as to leave little doubt of their importance. The name Bhava Naga the only known king of the Bharasiva dynasty, also seems to connect him with the Nagas. It is not possible to enter here into the discussion of the coins of the second group, or the question of identification of Achyuta Ganapati Naga or Nagasena of Allahabad Pillar inscription with these Puranic Naga kings. Of all the Nagas referred to in ancient Indian History, the North Indian houses of the 4^th century AD stand out as the most prominent and historically most tangible. We do not know whether Nagabhatta and his son Maharaja Moheesvara Naga of the Lohore Copper Seal belonged to any of these three groups or formed a separate Naga family by themselves. But all these sufficiently justifies the conclusion of Dr. CC Roy Chaudhari that Kushana kingdom of Northern India disappeared in the 4^th century AD having been conquered by the Nagas. These Nagas must have been ruling over different portions of Uttarapatha  till they were themselves swept away before the conquering arms of Samudragupata.

As late as the time of Skandagupta, however we find one Sarvanaga as the governor of Antarvedi. In the neighbourhood of Saurashtra and Bharukaccha especially, the the Nagas seem to have held a prominent position down to the 6^th century AD. From the Junagadh inscription Skandagupta appears to have dealt severely with a Naga rebellion. In 570 AD Dadda I Gurjara uprooted the Nagas who have been identified with the jungle tribes ruled over by Brihul laka of Broach. Dhruvasena II’s grant of G.S. 334 (645 AD) also mentions as Dutala the Pramatri Srinaga

Who are the Dravidians? Are they different from the Nagas? Or are they two different names for a people of same race? The popular view is that the Dravidians and Nagas are names of two different races. This statement is bound to shock many people. Nonetheless, it is a fact that the term Dravidians and Nagas are merely two different names for the same people.

It is not to be denied that very few will be prepared to admit the proposition that the Dravidians and Nagas are merely two different names for the same people and fewer that the Dravidians as Nagas occupied not merely South India but that they occupied the whole of India- South as well as North. Nonetheless, theses are historical truths.

Source: Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches Vol. 7, Page- 292,
Education Department Government of Maharashtra, India, 1990