REBEL KING BHARATH SINGHA AND HIS COINS: BHAUMA-NARAKA LEGEND FOR THE FORMATION OF MATAK KINGDOM

Purpose of the study: Moamaria rebel king Bharath Singha of Assam issued coins declaring himself a descendant of Bhagadatta. In the present study, we have discussed the ancestral lineage of the rebel king and the various aspects of his association of Bhagadatta. Methodology: The ancestral root and genealogy of the Mayamara gurus, the community of the rebel king, based on the biographies and other available sources. Genuine coins issued by Bharath Singha were taken for the present study. Various other primary and secondary sources related to the coinage of Assam, historical events, genealogy, and inscriptions were also analysed, and contents are compared to reach a decision. Main Findings: Bharath Singha established a kingdom based on the Neo-Vaishnavite faith. He associated himself with the legendary king Bhagadatta of Pragjyotishpura for the legitimation of his rule. Applications of this study: The study may be applied in analysing the nature of the Moamaria Rebellion. Novelty/Originality of this study: In the present study we have discussed Moamaria rebel leader Bharath Singha of Assam and his coins. Although a good number of works have been published discussing various aspects of Moamaria Rebellion, no special attention had been given to Bharath Singha.


INTRODUCTION
After the fall of the Pala dynasty, the Kamarupa Kingdom disintegrated, and several smaller kingdoms emerged. In such a situation the Ahom Kingdom was established in 1228 AD in the eastern part by Tai prince Sukapha. The Ahoms successfully resisted the Mughal advancement to Assam and maintained the existence of their kingdom for nearly six hundred years. The kingdom was occupied by the British East India Company through the Treaty of Yandabo in 1228 AD defeating the Burmese invaders (Gait, 2018;Goswami, 2012).
Before the occupation by the Burmese, the Ahom kingdom had to face a series of armed revolts spanning over several decades in the second half of the 18 th century that weakened the kingdom which in turn opened the way to the Burmese. The rebellion, popularly known as Moamaria Rebellion, was carried out by a section Vaishnavite subjects. The Neo-Vaishnavism movement initiated by Srimanta Sankardeva (1449-1568 AD) greatly influenced the Assamese society and caused the most influential social revolution in Assam against casteism, polytheism, and idol worship. Before his demise, Sanakardeva nominated his disciple Mahapurush Madhavdeva as his successor. But some of the apostles of Sankardeva were not satisfied with the decision taken by Sankardeva and with the passage of time four sects or samhatis emerged, namely, nika samhati, purush samhati, brahma samhati and kala samhati (Neog, 1965;Sarma, 1966). A new institutional order came to be known as satra, a monastery-like religious and socio-cultural institution, emerged and several such satras were established by the disciples of Sankaradeva following his demise (Saikia, 2018). Gopaldeva, a disciple of Madhavdeva established the kala samhati (Nath, 2014). Aniruddhadeva, a disciple of Gopaldeva, was a prominent exponent of Sankardeva's faith, continued the propagation of the bhakti movement among the socially backward and tribal population of Assam. Aniruddhadeva was one of the prominent preceptors of Neo-Vaishnavism in Assam in the post-Sankardeva period and the cult starting with him popularly came to know as Mayamara Vaishnavism. Some of the remarkable literary works of Aniruddhadeva are the Bhaktimangal Ghosha, the translation of Puranjan Uakhayan chapter of the fourth skandha (canto) of Srimad Bhagavata Puran into Assamese, the Nija-Shastra and the translation of the fifth skandha of Srimad Bhagavata Puran into Assamese (Sarma, 2006). Aniruddhadeva composed more than one hundred and eighty-two gits (lyrics) and gave, for each of them, the particular raga or melody. The orchestral band or Gayan-bayan performed in certain religious functions of the Mayamara societies is an important part of traditional music and dance of Assam (Gogoi, 2019). Moamaria Rebellion was carried out by the disciples of Mayamara Satra. Both the terms Mayamara and Moamaria are used extensively to describe the same section of people and have different views regarding their origin. In general, the term Moamaria denotes the section of people who carried out the famous Moamaria Rebellion and the term Mayamara indicates the cult of Anirudddhadeva. The followers of Mayamara Vaishnavism composed of Mataks, Morans, Chutiyas, Ahoms, Kacharis, Kaivartas, Kalitas, Brahmins, and Brittials; however, the Mataks and the Morans being the largest contributors (Dutta, 2017). Although the term Matak was often used in the chronicles as a synonym for Moamaria rebels or disciples of Mayamara gurus, some of the scholars are of the opinion that the Mataks are one of the original inhabitants of Assam. Mayamara disciples, irrespective After the demise of Lakshmi Singha, his son Gaurinath became the king. During the reign of King Gaurinath Singha alias Suhitpangpha (r. 1780-1795 AD) Moamarias revolted for the second time in April 1783 AD by suddenly attacking and causing devastation in Rangpur and old capital Gargaon. It was pushed back by royal force and resulting mass killing of Moamarias irrespective of their involvement in revolt to excavate any possibility of future rebellion. But that could not diminish their spirit. In 1786 AD, Moamorias rebelled for the third time with more power and enthusiasm. King Gaurinath Singha fled to Guwahati leaving the fate of the kingdom in the hand of his minister Purnananda Buragohain. Four rebel leaders declared themselves as the kings at four different parts within the Ahom kingdom. Harihar Tanti declared himself as the king in the seized part at Japaribhita, an extensive tract from the foot of the Dafla Hills to the Brahmaputra (present Lakhimpur District) and another rebel leader Howha declared independence at Majuli. Mejera alias Sarbananda Singha became king at Bengmara (present Tinsukia District)) and Bharathi alias Bharath Singha became king at Ahom capital Rangpur in 1791 AD (Gait, 2018) with the support of Mayamara guru Pitambardeva. Among these four Matak Kingdoms only the easternmost one, Bengmara, was able to survive. Purnananda Burgohain accepted the autonomy of Bengmara as a policy to satisfy the rebels and to create a buffer with the Burmese. Matibar succeeded his father Sarbananda Singha. In 1805 AD Matibar entered in an agreement with the Ahom Government and maintained a friendly relationship with the Ahom Kingdom. The relationship between the two kingdoms improved in the later stage to such an extent that Kalibar, younger brother of Matibar was recruited as Buragohain during the reign of Ahom king Chandrakanta Singha and sacrificed his life in the hand of the Burmese for the Ahom Kingdom. In 1792 AD, after the death of Howha, Majuli came under Bharath Singha (Dutta, 2017). The part seized by Harihar Tanti and the Kingdom of Bharath Singha later restored into the Ahom Kingdom. Gaurinath Singha entered the capital Rangpur in March, 1794 AD with the help of the British but later shifted the capital to Jorhat. Bharath Singha fled towards the kingdom of Sarbananda Singha but continued issuing coins in his name. In 1799 AD Bharath Singha, while trying to revolt again, was killed in an expedition by Ahom army trained on the British model. The emergence of autonomous Bengmara Kingdom and loss of life of a large section of the population weakened the Ahom kingdom which could not be compensated by anyways. The kingdom that resisted the powerful Mughal advancement for a long time fell into Burmese hand and thereby paved the way to the British rule in Assam.
Moamaria Rebellion has attracted many of the historians and social scientists. Barpujari (1963) analyses the rebellion as an external reflection of accumulated hatred, bitterness, and anger of the common masses. On the one hand, it was against the inhuman policy of repression and economic exploitation and on the other hand against extreme religious discrimination and humiliation. The seed of Moamaria rebellion was sown at the very beginning of Vaishnavism in Assam due to the feeling of hatred of other religious preachers and disciples and oppressions of kings and royal officials for generations (Bhuyan, 1975). Ahom monarchy always tried to suppress the Mayamara Vaishnavism based on religious ideology. This attitude of suppression is analysed as the main reason behind the Moamoaria Rebellion by Neog (1982) and Nath (2008). In a few studies, the socio-economic factors behind the revolt have also been studied (Guha, 1991;Sharma, 1996;Bora, 1998). These scholars have tried to analyse the revolt as a class struggle and commented that the erstwhile paik system of the Ahom regime and the revolt was for the restoration of social, economic and political  Nath (2008) has also emphasised on the presence of ethnic as well as caste elements during the rebellion. Chutiyas and Morans had their kingdoms which had been lost to Ahoms several centuries before, and through the rebellion, these two communities attempted to restore their respective kingdoms. In a recent study, Gogoi (2018) commented that terming Moamaria Rebellion as a peasant movement is nothing but an anachronistic interpretation and shown that ethnocentrism and casteism were the factors acting behind the rebellion.
Both the rebel kings Bharath Singha and Sarbananda Singha opened mints and started issuing gold and silver coins in their name. The rebels destroyed and looted many of the stores of gold and silver under the Ahom king (Bhuyan, 1994;Gait, 2018). The self-proclaimed king Bharath Singha declared himself as Bhagadatta Kulodbhava meaning originated from the clan of Bhagadatta as evidenced by his coins issued in the saka era 1713, 1714, 1715, 1718 and 1719 corresponding to 1791, 1792, 1793, 1796 and 1797 AD (Rhodes & Bose, 2004). A good number of works are available discussing various aspects of Moamaria Rebellion, but none of the publications has given importance to the association of Bharath Singha with the clan of Bhagadatta.

METHODOLOGY
With The present study provides a comparative analysis of the genealogy of Mayamora gurus based on the selfintroduction included in the Puranjan Upakhyan by Aniruddhadeva and his charits or biographies. Biographies of the Vaishnavite gurus are written by the disciples and popularly known as Guru Charitra or Guru Charit. These biographies not only provide information on the life and activities of the Vaishnavite saints but also give information relating to genealogy, geography, history, economic condition, social system and culture. There are two biographies available on Aniruddhadeva. The first charit of Aniruddhadeva including vamsavali or genealogy of his successors was written by Chidanandadeva who occupied the position of guru of Mayamara cult from 1868 to 1880 AD. This book was published in 1933 AD with the title Sri Sri Aniruddhadevar Charitra aru Mayamara Gosai Sakalar Vamsawali at the initiative of Hridayananda Goswami, a former satradhikar of the Mayamara Dinjoy Satra. This book opened the door for research on Aniruddhadeva, the Mayamara Vaishnava society and the Moamaria Rebellion (Baruah, 2004). The other charit which was written by Utsavananda Goswami, a former satradhikar of Mayamara Puronimati Satra near Jorhat is unpublished, and the manuscript is in possession of the satra (Hazarika, 2014). The relation of Bharath Singha with the community of the Mayamara gurus has also been analysed based on available historical sources. In addition to catalogues on coins of Assam during the Ahom period, two genuine silver coins of Bharath Singha sourced from locations well within the erstwhile Ahom Kingdom were also examined.

Genealogy of Mayamara gurus
Family of the first Mayamara guru Aniruddhadeva belonged to Baro-Bhuyan community. Bhuyans of Assam are often prefixed with baro, meaning twelve or many. Baro-Bhuyans of Assam did not belong to a particular cast, instead, they belong to various ethnic groups both indigenous and migrants. Each Bhuyan chief was the administrative and judicial head of a particular tract (Barua, 2014). The genealogy and ancestral root of Aniruddhadeva can be extracted from three different sources. In Puranjan Upakhyan, Aniruddhadeva included his self-introduction, where he describes himself as a son of Gondagiri (Goswami, 1993). He started his genealogy from Mahipal, his great grandfather. It provides no information on the predecessors of Mahipal or any connection with Nepal. According to the charit written by Chidanandadeva, king Sasabindu of Nepal and his son king Bhagadatta were the ancestors of Aniruddhadeva (Goswami, 1933

Coins of King Bharath Singha:
For the present study, we have taken two silver coins (Figure 1) issued by Bharath Singha. The legends on the coins are in Sanskrit with the Assamese script. The details of the legends of the two coins are given in Table 1.  The obverse legend may be translated as intoxicated with the nectar of the lotus of the feet of Sri Sri Krishna, while the reverse legend may be translated as King Sri Bharatha Singha born in the family of Sri Bhagadatta (Dutta, 1994;Sirkar, 2008). Legends and other characteristics the coins are the same as reported by Dutta (1984) and Rhodes & Bose (2004 Dutta (1994), while reporting on a rare gold coin of Bharath Singha, commented that Bharath issued his coins claiming his ancestral root with king Bhagadatta of Nepal, numismatists think that Bhagadatta mentioned in the coins of the rebel king was the legendary king of Pragjyotishpura (Rhodes & Bose, 2004). Assam was known as Kamarupa with its capital at Pragjyotishpura in ancient times. The dragon-like winged lion symbol used by the Ahom Kings is clearly seen on the reverse side of both the coins. This mythical figure was used as the emblem of the Ahom Kingdom and is now available in the Vaishnavite monasteries of Assam (Sarma, 2017).

Bhauma-Naraka legend and legitimation of royal dynasties:
The earliest king of Pragjyotishpura or Kamarupa was a non-Aryan named Mahiranga of the Danava dynasty. Mahiranga is the Sanskritised from Bodo origin name Mairang. The king and the peoples were thus Mlecchas of Mongoloid origin. Naraka, an asura, conquered Pragjyotisha overthrowing King Ghataka and started the reign of a new dynasty in Kamarupa (Barua, 2014). Bhagadatta, an illustrious king of Pragjyotishpura and son of Naraka, was the great hero of Mahabharata whose daughter was married to Duryodhana, the eldest Kaurava. Thus in the Kurukshetra war, Bhagadatta took the side of the Kauravas. Bhagadatta considered Krishna as his enemy as his friend Jarasandha was killed by Krishna. Bhagadatta was so powerful that the writer of the epic made Arjuna, with Lord Krishna as the charioteer of his ratha, as the defeater of Bhagadatta. The legend of Naraka and Bhagadatta is firmly attached to the ancient Kamarupa Kingdom and three royal dynasties in the early medieval period, namely, Varmans, Salastambhas, and Palas claimed to descend from Naraka (Choudhury, 1959). In the famous Nidhanpur copperplate inscription King Bhaskaravarman of Kamarupa, the king claimed to be a descendant of Naraka and Bhagadatta. According to this copperplate, the genealogy of King Bhaskaravarman was started with king Naraka. After Naraka, Bhagadatta became the king, who in turn followed by Vrajadatta. After Vrajadatta the kingdom was ruled by different rulers of this family for three thousand years. Then Pushyavarman became the king (Bhattacharya, 1914). Pushyavarman (r. 350-374 AD), a contemporary of Samudragupta, was the first king of Varman dynasty of Kamarupa. Bhaskaravarman (r. 600-650 AD) was the most illustrious ruler of the Varman dynasty. Still, after his death, Salastambha acquired the power through a Mleccha revolution and established the reign of the Salastambha dynasty (650-900 AD). The Dubi Copper-plate Inscription of Bhaskaravarman also traces the genealogy of Varman kings with Naraka, Bhagadatta and Vrajadatta (Sharma, 1978). The Hayunthal Copperplate Grant of Harjaravarman (r. 815-832 AD), a king from Salastambha dynasty, mentions himself as a descendant of Bhagadatta (Bhattacharya, 1931;Lahiri, 1991). The Tezpur Copperplate Grant of King Vanamalavarman of Salastambha dynasty also indicates the genealogy of the Salastambha kings with Naraka and Bhagadatta (Sharma, 1978). The Salastambha dynasty was succeeded by Pala dynasty (900-1100 AD). The Borgaon copperplate inscription of Ratnapala (r. 920-960 AD) states that after the twenty-first ruler of that dynasty, Tyagsingha, that died without leaving any heir, Brahmapala was nominated as the king due to his relationship with Naraka (Bhattacharya, 1931;Sharma, 1978;Lahiri, 1991). Brahmapala was the first king of Pala dynasty and father of Ratnapala.
Harsacharitra of Banabhatta describes Naraka as a Bhauma, son of Bhumi or Mother Earth, and Bhagadatta was the anvaya (line of succession) of Naraka (Kakati, 1948). According to Kalika Purana, Naraka was the son of Earth and Vishnu. Naraka was nurtured by her mother in infancy but was reared by Aryan king Janaka of Videha. Naraka gradually became a fierce fighter and well versed in Vedas and a devotee of the God Vishnu. Later Naraka changed his  (Acharyya, 1987;Saikia, 2018).
Claiming ancestral lineage with Naraka and Bhagadatta helped in the legitimisation of Varman, Salastambha, and Pala dynasties of early medieval Assam but after the disintegration of Kamarupa Kingdom followed by the advent of the Ahoms interrupted the continuation of the legend. Bharath Singha intended to re-establish this lost lineage, thereby attempting to legitimise his rule and trying to raise a moral challenge in front of the Ahom royal dynasty. But the Mayamara gurus of post-Moamaria Rebellion had taken it differently. The gurus believed that their ancestors migrated from Kanauj as stated in the charits. Definitely, this migration would be much later than the time of Bhagadatta. Moreover, being true Vaishnavites, the Mayamara gurus might not be satisfied with the asura lineage of their ancestors and also, the fact that they took the side of Kauravas against the Pandavas and Lord Krishna in the Kurukshetra war. Therefore, the creation of a story with a different King Bhagadatta became necessary which coincides with their migration into Assam and also supports the claim of Bharath Singha. Therefore, we could not find any king named Bhagadatta in Nepal medieval history. Considering 1553 AD as the birth year of Aniruddhadeva in an approximate time of ten generations above there was no part in Nepal ruled by any king named Sumitra or Suryasamachar (Baruah, 2006). The difference in the names of the ancestors in the two biographies indicates that legends were not passed orally among generations rather created by the authors. However, both the biographies associate Kanauj and Nepal to the ancestors of the Mayamara gurus. It is possible that during the Turkish aggression in India, ancestors of Aniruddhadeva might be pushed from Kanauj to Nepal, where they occupied a large part of the land, and later moved to Assam. Although, Dutta (1994) previously of the opinion that Bhagadatta stated in the coins of Bharath Singha is the King Bhagadatta of Nepal, later admitted that some of the contents of the biographies are based on unscientific grounds (Dutta, 2017).

CONCLUSION
The whole period of Bharath Singha as king accompanied by the struggle for survival of his kingdom. Neither a stable economy within the kingdom nor any trade with neighbouring kingdoms was possible in such an unstable political condition. If required, he seized coins from Ahoms could easily fulfill any economic need. The reason for issuing coins by Bharath Singha was thus not economic but to create a reputation of his family. In medieval Assam, gold was extracted from the sand in the rivers and silver was brought from Tibet as no silver mines within the Ahom kingdom (Kalsi, 2005; Kalita, 2019).
The reputation of a dynasty is an important factor in which its acceptability as a royal dynasty depends. The Brahmins projected and popularized the ruling tribe as the ruling caste (Kshatriya) to legitimise their rule. It was a common phenomenon in tribal polities of northeast India (Singh, 1985). While the earlier three dynasties claimed themselves as descendants of Naraka and Bhagadatta, Ahom kings were considered as the descendants Indra or Lengdon. Yogini Tantra, a sixteenth-century Sanskrit text, describes the birth of Viswasingha, the first king of the Koch dynasty, from the union between Shiva and Hira, a Koch wife of Haria Mech for the same purpose (Barman, 2014). In a recent article, focusing on the Chutiyas and the Dimasas, Shin (2020) has discussed how the descendants of demons were finally approved as kshatriyas and how deviation from the traditional demonic lineage occurred. The asura lineage of Chutiya kings, explicitly mentioned as suraripuvaṃśa in the Dhenukhana inscription dated 1392 AD, was replaced with the lineage with king Bhīṣmaka, the father-in-law of Krishna. Dimasa kings initially claimed to be Hachengcaha Vamsaja (descendants of Hachengcha) in their coins, referred to as heḍamvādhipati (Lord of Heramba) in the rock-cut inscriptions of later period. A genealogy reaching to Ghaṭotkaca, son of Bhima and Hidimba, was created for the Dimasa kings. After shifting the capital from Maibong to Khaspur, a place already inhabited by other communities, Hachengcha lineage had limited appeal outside the Dimasas and was no longer conducive to legitimising their position.
For the two rebel kings Sarbananda Singha and Bharatha Singha, it was needed that their families must have some superiority or divine origin. Sarbananda Singha declared himself to be a Chutiya (Buruk branch of the Chutiyas). Thus the purpose of legitimation was easily fulfilled for King Sarbananda Singha by associating him with legendary Chutiya kings (Dohutia, 2016). Gogoi (2018) stated that the assertion of Bharath Singha was the way of the revival of the lost Baro-Bhuyan glory of the past fulfilling the unsuccessful dream of Saptabhujdeva. But we strongly believe that Bharath Singha looked beyond the Baro-Bhuyan glory attached to his clan. As Bharath Singha was not related ethnically to any of the contemporary royal dynasties of Assam, he intended to revive the Bhauma-Naraka legend, that legitimised three royal dynasties Kamarupa in the early medieval period. Inscriptions of the Salastambha dynasty do not show any lineage of its rulers with the Varman rulers, instead, they directly associate them with Naraka and Bhagadatta (Shin, 2011). In the same line, King Bharath Singha associated himself directly with legendry King Bhagadatta without creating any lineage with the royal dynasties of medieval Assam.

LIMITATION AND STUDY FORWARD
Coins are the only evidence left by Bharath Singha which associates him with Bhagadatta. The intension of a section of rebels to start a new royal dynasty based on the Bhauma-Naraka legend may be analysed as a factor behind Moamaria Rebellion, but it needs further critical study.