Talk:Katoch

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Katoch/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Dear Sir , Its nice to see ur keen interest in katoch history, but i want to submitt that in katoch history only two castes ie Guleria n katoch belongs to same family no other caste belongs to them. in ur site nothing was mentioned about sujanpur tihra which was the capital of Maharaja Sansar Chand Katoch the Last Empror of Katoch. You have mentioned that the only Kanwar family of lambagaon belongs to Maharaja Sansar Chand Katoch family which is totally wrong. some of the family resides at Bhawarna, other at nadaun and some of at Alampur ( Near Sujanpur Tihra) till yet ( Who belongs to TIKKA FAMILY {{ means the elder brother of Kanwar}} you can also contact us and can send ur comments at katochamit007@hotmail.com if u disagree. yours sincerly Amit Katoch, V& P.O. alampur bagh, Teh. Jaisinghpur distt. Kangra H.P.

Last edited at 06:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wild claims?

All sorts of wild claims appear in caste-related articles. One source we use is a news story about a seminar that may well fall into that bracket. What actually is the Neri Research Centre, who organised the seminar? - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

There aren't any wild claims. Katoch is a clan not a caste (in that it is determined by descent not by hereditary transmission of social status). For each one of the citation requests multiple references have been now provided precisely so as to ensure validity of any claims. From Cunningham to British-era Gazeteers to SDS Charak, all have provided similar statements. Since, these have also been backed by archaeological and other evidence, historians came to a consensus and the same have been published in a number of books. This is the reason these claims are not wild. There are now just 9 lines and 8 citations. If required more can be provided. Please don't remove any content instantly, ask for citations first.Digvijaykatoch (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I said caste-related, which obviously includes clans. British Raj sources are not reliable and will be removed. I still don't know what the credentials of the Neri Research Centre might be and I am struggling to find out because it is quite a common organisational acronym. It certainly doesn't seem to have a high profile. - Sitush (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Wonderland Himachal Pradesh An Encyclopedia is a new source to me. Never heard of the author or the publisher, which rings alarm bells, especially given how much plagiarism of Raj sources goes on. Anyone else know anything about those involved with the book? - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• H. G. Publications do both in-house publishing and self-publishing. I'm not sure which category applies to the book in question. - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what the difference is, but the author owns the publishing company [1]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case, we can't use the book as a source here or in any other article. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• There appear to be quite a few academic-type books that mention the Katoch, eg: by Indus Publishing and this from Duke University Press. That's the sort of thing we need, really. - Sitush (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Some tidbits

Katoch is a large clan. There is hardly anybody of any importance in these areas who isn't a Katoch. (Hutchison & Vogel).

The Kangra valley was controlled by Kiras in ancient times. (Rama Shankar Tripathi). Kira could have been a tribal name or a generic term for hill people. Kiratas are often mentioned in the epics in this sense.

The frontier of Kashmir was invaded by Muhammad bin Qasim (712–715) and his successor Junayd 723–726) invaded it again, where it is called Al-Kiraj. So presumably the Kiras rebelled in-between. Junayd's invasion is said to have effectively put an end to the kingdom. (See Umayyad campaigns in India.)

But Jahangir annexed Kangra in as late as 1620 (Avari).

Nevertheless, Kangra still survived as a state till 1947 and there was supposedly an "unbroken line" of Katochs ruling it. My guess is that, being a large clan, whenever a ruler was defeated/deposed/killed, another member of the clan would have come to take his place. A hill country being hard to subdue and not worth the effort, the empires would have more or less left them alone, except when they caused trouble in the plains. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No, Bhots and Kiratas are different from Katoch clan. Kiratas were one of the first inhabitants of the region who were of Mongoloid origin. (pg 23) They were called Dasyus, Yakshas, Kinners, etc. Modern day Baijnath was called Kiragram during the pre-vedic period (pg. 28 of the link) Current research shows that the first migration from the East happened around 10,000 B.C. However, the earlier migrants were pushed further into the hills with successive migrations from the east and the west. Modern day Kinnaur, Shimla, and parts of Chamba are inhabited mostly by Kiratas. The Kiratas can be identified by their distinctly mongoloid features, unique language, and the Kirata religion. In the Kangra valley, they are called Ghirths, Choudhary or Ghiraths, which is regarded as a derogatory term by some. In the Hoshiarpur region, they are called Chang. On the other hand, the features of the Katoch clan members are non-mongoloid and all dialects/languages emanate from Sanskrit. They were among the next migrants who overran the plains and lower hills, which is from where the first mythological story of origin of Katoch king Bhumi/Bhum Chand(Last lines p133 to p134) from the goddess's brow comes during her battle with Jallandhar demon. In terms of hierarchy, common clan folk married into Pathanias, and aristocratic/regal members married with the main Royal families in Rajasthan until the 1970s when it was agreed that it just wasn't practical to marry into only specific houses anymore. -- Digvijaykatoch (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I can believe that Kiratas were pushed out to the mountains. But around Junaid's time, both the Indian records and the Arab records mention the kingdom of Kiras. Are we to take it that the country was still named after them, even though they had lost control? The only other Punjab people mentioned in the Indian record are the Kurus and Yadus. Which of these were Katochs? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is the full quote:

The list of chiefs who attended this Imperial Durbar gives us a rough idea of the extent of Dharmapala's empire. It included central Punjab (Madra) and probably extended up to the Sindu, for the Yavanas can only refer to the Muslim rulers of Sindh or Multan while Ghandhara denotes the upper valley of the Sindu and a part of NWFP. It also included the Kangra valley (Kira), East Panjab (Kuru, Yadu), Jaipur (Matsya), Malwa (Avanti) and probaby also Berar (Bhoja). Bengal, which hardly counted as a factor in Indian politics for more than a century before the Palas came into power, now suddenly emerged as the mistress of an empire that stretched from one of the North India to the other.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Baijnath is not Kangra Valley

I'll give you the exact quotes for the names soon. The above cited quote provided leaves out the Kulutas(rulers of Kullu), Katochs, Champakas(rulers of Chamba) and others who held parts of the plains, which probably means that there were no relations with the Pal/Sen Kingdom and certain hill chiefs. Since around the same period when Palas ruled the Eastern lands, Ghazni looted Kangra fort which is something well documented, I am sure you'll find those names their. Also, there is a connection between Janapadas and Kingdoms of Northern Punjab, Lower Himachal, Jammu and Kashmir mentioned around Chanakya's period, Ghazni's, and courts of Mughals and Ranjeet Singh. But, what is certain is that Baijnath itself is not Kangra valley. As already cited Baijnath was Kiragram. Baijnath is a much smaller place at the border with Suket(Modern Mandi). Neither is it Jalandhara as has already been established by the various names of Jalandhara which was the original seat until the Muslim invasion. The Katoch common people were called "Kat" (pronounced Kat) during Chanakya's time, who were asked by Chanakya to join against the Greeks. Katoch were the highest among the Kats and were called Katoch = Kat+"Uch". I'll revisit all the relevant books for quotes as soon as I get a little time. But, you have the right trail now.

If you're wondering where the word Kangra comes from, it comes from "Kaan"+"Ghar" (to make the ear or ear surgeons). While the Brits took away plastic surgery techniques from South India, Kangra was a similar medicine center of the North for Royals and distinguished warriors sent by Kings to get their facial features fixed.Nic on Plastic Surgery

Digvijaykatoch (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not interested in folk etymologies. What I am looking for is corroboration from outside sources. Family genealogies are often made up.

Kurus, Yadus and Kiras were the only people from the area important enough to have been invited and recorded at the Dharmapala's coronation (late 8th century). And, Kira was presumably a very important kingdom, which had to be personally attacked (twice) by the Arab governors and to be recorded in Kannauj's history. Kiras also provided refuge to Jaisimha, the deposed son of Dahir. So they were gutsy as well. They don't sound like fringe people that were pushed out to the mountain frontiers by the plains people. If the Katochs were not the same as Kiras then they practically didn't exist, no matter what the local traditions say.

Ghazni was a couple of centuries later. In the intervening period, the area was conquered by Lalitaditya Muktapida and later by the Kabul Shahis. It was most likely Kabul Shahi wealth that was stored in the Kangra fort and fell into Ghazni's hands. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Avoid Speculation

You're speculating now. "Most likely" and "presumably" is not adding to the wiki page. We don't know why those kings weren't invited by the Palas, that is the fact. We just know that they are not mentioned as invited in that particular book provided by you. If you find a book where Trigarta, Katoch, or Jalandhara were linked to Kiratas, please mention it here. Let us stick to facts that can be ascertained from actual text.

Digvijaykatoch (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself: What I am looking for is corroboration from outside sources. If it is claimed that the Katochs were ruling since the times of Mahabharata, there must be evidence for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself. Find me the linkage of Kiratas ruling Jalandhara or Kangra as it was known then, i.e. Nagarkot, Bhimkot, etc. Because that is what you speculated earlier. If not, then stop speculating that.

Digvijaykatoch (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sir, Thanks for valuable information. The Kira's are the peoples known today as Kirat, ghrit aur Ghirth in Kangra Valley. However, it may please be noted that Kira & Kiraat are two separate trebes. Interestingly, it may be noted that history of Kira, Ghrit or Girath has been disappeared in history back frrom 14th century, thats a matter of research as they are old inhabitants of Kangra valley. 165.85.3.108 (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Progress on Etymology

The following quote from a book published by Indus publishing called Forts and Palaces of Western Himalayas provides roots to the clan name Katoch. Certainly different from the one that I read about, but nevertheless from a reliable publisher (Pg 20): "The Kangra fort is situated at a peculiar strategical situation overlooking deep furrows leading to wide spanned stream. The fort, now in ruins, once commanded respect among the hill chieftains... It was popularly known as Nagarkot or Kot Kangra. Kot denotes a fort and Nagar denotes a town, so collectively it meant the fort of the town. The clan who ruled Kot Kangra was named Katoch after Kot. In fact, this fort was so peculiar in its situation and formidable features that it became a unique structure among the prevailing forts. So the clan ruing this fort was known as Katoch."

"... and in vernacular they were called Kot'ch that is why they became popular as Katoch."

Digvijaykatoch (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, found this one, having read it a long time back. The content is published by the Oxford University Press and one of the contributors is the Anthropoligical Survey of India pg 1613: "KATOCH They derive their nomenclature from the word Kat(army) and uch (upper class)"

Digvijaykatoch (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Tracing Katoch Through The Ages

First References Dating the oldest reference is achieved hence. Trigarta is mentioned as one of janapadas in the Mahabharata. Trigarta The first writing of the Mahabharata was done in the 4th Century B.C. frst second Then, it is again mentioned in the works of Panini. It is also mentioned in Buddhist literature. However, Trigarta disintegrated into smaller states around 400 to 500 B.C. Still, Kangra region was referred to as Trigarta by some. Kangra Trigarta Hence, we can place the date around the same period as when Panini, Mahabharata, and other literature was written for the existence of Trigarta as an important state, i.e. between 600 B.C. to 400 B.C.

This is confirmed by details given here. "The evidence of the unique coin of the Trigartas along with the testimony of literary references shows their antiquity which goes back at least to the fifth century B.C."

Mentioned in Mahabharata The first mention in the epic Mahabharata names Susarma/Susharman as the founder of Trigarta. It is also mentioned in the epic that after the war, Susarma lost Multan and had to retreat closer to Jalandhar region. There he is credited with founding the Kangra fort, also called the Nagarkot fort. SusarmaNagarkot

Kangra being called Susarmapura Also, Kangra was called Susarmapura by a variety of Sanksrit, Buddhist, Jain, and later Islamic scholars. In fact, the first mention of 'Nagarkot' comes from islamic scholars documenting the region since they mainly referred to the fort. Prior to that, it was mainly documented as Susarmapur. Page 116 Susarmapur As already mentioned, Katoch derives name from Kot of Nagarkot.

So, the oldest reference to Katoch rulers, which then gets verified from 4 different kinds of sources, i.e. Genealogy(which alone would have been unreliable), Mythology, Actual written texts by scholars, and actual ruled city being named after the founder, implies that Susarma was in fact the first verifiable person on the list. The suffix Chandra and later Chand is also unique to the Katochs in the region, since the neighboring Rajas used Sen or other such suffixes.

The only chiefs traced from the original Trigarta dynasty Finally, the later rulers in the region were the only tributary chiefs of the erstwhile Trigarta dynasty here i.e. no new, outside, or foreign rulers replaced the original Trigarta rulers.

Alexander, Porus, Kathas The Katochs are mentioned as Kathas by Arrian. pg 422 The ruler of Trigarta at the time of invasion by Alexander is called Porous by the Greeks. It is said that the same person was later met by Chanakya, who called him Parvartaka. pg 423 This name finds mention in the Vanshavali as Parvartaka Chandra as well. Pravartaka ruled Trigarta can be found here: pg 66 pg 19. This is also supported by the fact that Alexander had altars created near Indaura at the short of the river Beas, which is the point from where his army had returned after having fought the battle with Porus. pg 104 This is also the region that lies within the ancient Trigarta boundaries.

Numismatics of 1st Century B.C. The next reference is found in numismatics of Katoch kings. The coins found are dated to be from around 2nd and 1st Century B.C. pg 48

Romila Thapar till 4th Century A.D. Eminent historian Romila Thapar mentions that along with the Greeks, the following were mentioned as vratya kshatriyas or mlechhas: Dravida, Abhira, Sabara, Kirata, Malava, Sibi, Trigarta, and Yaudheya. Since they weren't Arya as they didn't perform vedic rituals, but they had gained significant power. She provides a period between when Panini(5th Century B.C.) penned the existence of Trigarta and the invasion of Samudragupta in the 4th Century A.D. where again these same vratya kshatriyas were mentioned. Pg. 420

Difference between Katoch and Kiratas Romila's book clearly distinguishes regions ruled and that Kiratas and Trigartas were different. That Kiragram was ruled by some other lords and Katochs were overlords of those Kiragram rulers can be found here: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Y2naAAAAMAAJ&dq=susarmapura+trigarta&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=susarmapura

Hieun Tsang, Chamba inscription After Samudragupta, the next mention of Trigarta is from Hieun Tsang who mentions Jallandhar being ruled by Udito which matches the name given in the geneology i.e. Adita. Then, in the 8th century A.D, the Trigarta rulers acknowledged supremacy of the Karkota rulers of Kashmir. This is also mentioned in the Rajtarangini. From the 9th century to the 11th century, there are various mentions, one of the important ones being the 10th century Chamba inscription which mentions the Trigarta raja being subdued by Sahilavarman and then becoming an ally. It was also during this time time that Ghazni entered the Kangra fort (1009 A.D.) while the Kangra forces were away on war. The ruler of the time was Jagdish Chandra. From that point on, save one or two rulers, all rulers of the Katoch dynasty vanshavali can be traced down to the last king. pg.47

Ferishta's account about a 1st century A.D incident Also, Ferishta mentioned another account of 1st century A.D. when the king of Kanauj, Raja Ram Deo, went on conquest and overran the hills. He spared Kumaon raja after getting his daughter in marriage, then he spared Nagarkot raja after the ruler offered his daughter in marriage. Pg 19.

So, from the time that Panini penned down his account of the Janapadas in the 6th/5th Century B.C. to the Gupta period, and then to the invasion of Ghazni, and finally to the modern era, the history of the Katoch kings and hence the clan can be traced. The uniqueness of the suffix Chandra itself distinguishes them from Sen, Verman, Dev, and other such suffixes used by neighboring rulers.

Digvijaykatoch (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for digging up a lot of references. All the information regarding Trigarta needs to go in the Trigarta Kingdom page, including the Susharmapura detail. Only references that deal specifically with Katochs should remain here.

All we know about Katochs so far is that their family genealogies refer to these historic personages. We can mention that here, but attribute it to the family genealogies. It is up to the readers whether they believe it or not. We don't make that decision.

Also make sure that you don't refer to any books published by Gyan. Concept publishing is also a questionable publisher. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Haha. Yes, I am not a researcher, but I know my history. I had to fight the Chinese off when they falsely tried to connect Katoch to some province in China. It's as if these people don't want to believe that Indians ruled their own lands.

Coming back to the topic, the genealogy or concept publishing are not the only sources though. Since, we love Indus publishing, here is what it says about Katoch, which we can include here, since it is from a reliable source. katochconnection "Thus the history of Nagarkot, the erstwhile state of Kangra, is the history of Kangra fort. It was the citadel of Katoch lords who ruled Trigarta for thousands of years, right from Mahabharata period till pre-independent era, but as and when they lost their fort their power deserted them."

That line connects Katoch to Trigarta, Kangra, and Nagarkot(fort). And should be sufficient to be included as is into the wiki page.

Digvijaykatoch (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The capital was moved from Jalandhara to Nagarkot in 1070 A.D. as mentioned due to constant contact in Jalandhar with various ambitious invading forces who usually were enroute to middle India. here. Digvijaykatoch (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You have to be very careful not to synthesise knowledge. We are not allowed to "join the dots", for example. - Sitush (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you. I am aware of that. 'Synthesis' as described above means taking multiple sources and reaching a conclusion. That is why I have used single line from single source and have not added anything new to the line. Digvijaykatoch (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Have Requested Expert Help

I have also requested expert help from a highly regarded expert and experienced wikipedia contributor, reviewer, and admin, who is a member of both the WikiProject India and WikiProject Punjab projects. He is also an expert on military history, which is something I don't have much depth in as a subject. Digvijaykatoch (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Script

WP:INDICSCRIPT does not apply to the body text of an article but one of the reasons for it existing is because of people fiddling around with scripts without much regard to sourcing etc, and sometimes resulting in outright vandalism. Without intending to say that this edit is anything other than made in good faith, do we really need the script at that point in the body anyway, regardless of which spelling is used? - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)