The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c32.s5: (5) Cāhamānas of Raṇastambhapura
The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c32.s5
- Language
- English
Contents
- v2.c32.s5.3 — 4 parts
(5) Cāhamānas of Raṇastambhapura
v2.c32.s5.1
According to the *Hammīra-mahākāvya* of Nayacandra the Raṇastambhapura (Ranthambhor) branch of the Cāhamānas was established by Govindarāja after the death of Harirāja. I have quoted from Ḥasan Niẓāmī to show that Hirāj (Harirāja), after throwing off the yoke of the Muslims, besieged his nephew in the fort of Ranthambhor. When Quṭb ud-Dīn recovered Ajmer after defeating Harirāja, Govindarāja apparently continued to rule in Ranthambhor as a feudatory of the Muslims. The *Hammīra-mahākāvya*, of course, does not hint at these differences between Harirāja and Govindarāja, though it makes some disparaging remarks about Harirāja's fondness for pleasure and dancing girls, which, it is alleged, made him an easy prey to ‘Sahābadīna.’ When attacked by the Muslim-prince he was so enfeebled that he could not resist him and committed *Sak* with his whole family. He left no son, and so his followers and retainers retired and assembled round Govindarāja at Ranthambhor.¹
v2.c32.s5.2
¹ Text, III, 73-82; IV, 1-19. *IA*, Vol. VIII, p. 61. I have already pointed out that Kirtane's summary mentions Govindarāja as the grandson of Pṛthvīrāja but probably he was the unnamed son of Pṛthvīrāja mentioned by the Muslims. See *EI*, Vol. XX, *Appendix*, p. 89, fn. 1.
v2.c32.s5.3.1
According to Nayacandra, Govinda was succeeded by his eldest son Bālhaṇa and the latter by his eldest son Prahlāda. The *Manglana stone-inscription* dated in (V.) S. 1272 (*c.* 1215 A.D.) seems to show that Vallaṇadeva (*i.e.*, Bālhaṇa) was still a feudatory of the *Hamīra* Samasadāṇa (Shams ud-Dīn Iltutmish) of the city of Joginī. The marble stone bearing this inscription was found at Manglana, 19 miles W. of Maroth in Marwar. It records the construction of a step-well by Vallaṇa's feudatory, the Dadhīca *Mahārāja-putra Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara* Jayatasiṁha.² Prahlāda's younger brother Vāgbhaṭa served him as his primeminister. Prahlāda died in a lion-hunt, and was succeeded by his son Vīranārāyaṇa, who is reported by Nayacandra to have been decoyed to Yoginīpura (Delhi) and poisoned the Śaka (Muslim) prince Jallāladīna. I am unable to identify this Delhi Sulṭān. The only prince bearing that name in the 13th century is Fīrūz(A.D. 1290-96), the first of the Khaljī kings of Delhi; but his date forbids identification with him. It seems extremely probable that by ‘Jallāladīna’ Nayacandra really meant Shams ud-Dīn Iltutmish (1211-36 A.D.), whose officers according to the *Ṭabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī* took the impregnable fort in 623 A.H. (1226 A.D.).¹ Vāgbhaṭa, Vīranārāyaṇa’s uncle, we are told, was absent from Ranthambhor at the time of his nephew’s tragic death; he had been insulted by him, and consequently he had retired to Malwa in dudgeon.
v2.c32.s5.3.2
The Muslim king, according to Nayacandra, sent instructions to the prince of Malwa to kill Vāgbhaṭa, but the latter was too much for him. Having learned the evil intentions of the Malwa ruler, Vāgbhaṭa killed him, and with the assistance of the ‘Kharpūrās’ attacked and captured Ranthambhor, which was presumably in Muslim hands at the time. This must have happened during the weak rule of the successors of Iltutmish. According to Niẓām ud-Dīn the fort was recovered by the Hindus during the reign of Sulṭān Raziyya (1236-40 A.D.), shortly after the death of Iltutmish.² It is difficult to identify the Malwa prince slain by Vāgbhaṭa, for the history of that area during the last quarter of the 13th century is extremely obscure. I am also unable to suggest the region where these ‘Kharpūrās’ dwelt. The name bears resemblance to the name of the Kharparika tribe who are reported by Hariṣeṇa to have paid taxes and obeyed the commands of the Gupta emperor Samudragupta.³ Kirtane seems inclined to accept them as Khakars, a Mongol tribe who invaded India about this time.
v2.c32.s5.3.3
There is as yet no means to verify all the details of the above account of the successors of Pṛthvīrājā given by Nayacandra.⁴ But that Vāgbhaṭa, a descendant of Pṛthvīrāja actually ascended the throne of Ranthambhor is proved by the recently discovered Balvan stone-inscription of Hammīra, the last Cāhamāna of this line.¹ This Vāgbhaṭa has been identified with ‘Bāhar-deo’ (Bāhaḍa-deva) of Ranthambhor, who is described by Minhāj as ‘the greatest of the Rāis of Hindūstān.’² He was attacked in A.H. 646 (A.D. 1248) by Ulugh Khān,³ who met with indifferent success, losing one of his nobles, Malik Bahā ud-Dīn Aibak in a battle under the fort of Ranthambhor.⁴ The Khān’s soldiers, we are told, “showed great courage and fought well; they sent many of the infidels to hell, and secured great spoil, after which they returned to the capital.” This happened in the reign of Sulṭān Nāṣir ud-Dīn Maḥmūd (1246-66 A.D.). The attack seems to have been renewed in A.H. 651 (A.D. 1253), when Ulugh Khān led a Muslim force from Nagor in the direction of Ranthambhor and Chitor. Minhāj relates that “Bāhar Deo, Rāī of Ranthambhor, the greatest of the Rāīs, and the most noble and illustrious of all the princes of Hindūstān, assembled an army to inflict a blow on Ulugh Khān. But……although the Rāī’s army was large and well appointed with arms and horses it was put to flight, and many of its valiant fighting men were sent to hell.
v2.c32.s5.3.4
The Musulmāns obtained great spoil and captured many horses and prisoners (*burda*). They then returned safe with their booty to Nāgor, which in consequence of Ulug Khān’s presence, had become a place of great importance.”⁵ It is clear from these accounts that the Cāhamānas of Ranthambhor, being aided by the weak rule of the successors of Iltutmish (1211-36 A.D.), had again consolidated their position to such an extent that their chief was regarded as the most powerful of all the Hindu princes of Hindustan.
v2.c32.s5.4
² *IA*, 1912, pp. 85-88.
v2.c32.s5.5
¹ *TN*, Vol. I, pp 610-11; *TF*, Briggs’ Trans, Vol. I, p. 210; *CHI*, Vol. III, p. 515.
v2.c32.s5.6
² *TA*, Trans., p. 76. *TF*, Briggs’ Trans, Vol. I, p. 219.
v2.c32.s5.7
³ *GI*, p. 8, line 22.
v2.c32.s5.8
⁴ See above Manglana inscription (1215 A.D.) of the time of Bālhaṇa.
v2.c32.s5.9
¹ *EI*, Vol. XIX, p. 49, V. 6.
v2.c32.s5.10
² *Elliot*, Vol. II, p. 367; *TA*, Trans., p. 87. *TF*, Briggs' Trans., Vol. I, p. 238. *EI*, Vol. XIX, p. 47. The *CHI*, Vol. III, pp. 69 and 516, gives the name as ‘Nahār Deo.’
v2.c32.s5.11
³ A title of Ghiyāth ud-Dīn Balban, who acted as the Vizir of Nāṣir ud-Dīn, and, then succeeded him as Sulṭān of Delhi in A.D. 1266. See *TF*, Briggs' Trans., Vol. I, p. 235.
v2.c32.s5.12
⁴ TN, Vol. II, pp. 684-85.
v2.c32.s5.13
⁵ *Elliot*, Vol. II, pp. 370-71.
v2.c32.s5.14
According to Nayacandra, Vāgbhaṭa died after a reign of 12 years.¹ His successor was his son Jaitrasiṁha. According to the Balvan inscription of Hammīra, Jaitrasiṁha harassed a certain Jayasiṁha of Maṇḍapa and killed the Kūrma king (*Kūrma-kṣitīśa*) and a king of Karkarālagiri.² He is also said to have ‘defeated hundreds of brave warriors of the king of Mālava at Jhampāithā-ghaṭṭa, and kept them as prisoners at Raṇastambhapura’³ (Ranthambhor). I have suggested elsewhere that this Jayasiṁha of Maṇḍapa (Mandu) was possibly the Paramāra (?) Jayavarman II, for whom we have the dates ranging from *c.* 1256-60 A.D.⁴ The Kūrma king may have been a member of the Kacchapaghāta (or Kacchapāri) family, an off-shoot of the Gwalior branch, which was slowly carving out a principality round Amber in the Jaipur State.⁵ According to Nayacandra, Jaitrasiṁha had three sons, *viz.*, Hammīra, Surat rāṇa, and Vīrama. Of these the eldest, Hammīra was born from his beautiful queen Hīrādevī. In course of time ‘finding that his sons were now able to relieve him from the burden of government, Jaitrasiṁha one day talked over the matter with Hammīra, and, after giving him excellent advice as to how he was to behave, he gave over the charge of state to him, and himself went to live in the forest. This happened in *Saṁvat* 1339 (A.D. 1283).’⁶
v2.c32.s5.15
¹ If we may believe the Muslim chroniclers, then Ranthambhor was captured by the Hindus, possibly under Vāgbhaṭa's leadership shortly after Iltutmish's death in 1236 A.D., during Raziyya's reign (1236-40 A.D.). Twelve years' reign from the last year of Raziyya would give Vāgbhaṭa a reign-period extending from 1240-52 A.D. But *see ante*. Bāhar Deo was fighting with Ulugh Khān in 1253 A.D.
v2.c32.s5.16
² *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 46 and 49-50, Vs. 7-8.
v2.c32.s5.17
³ *Ibid*, V. 9.
v2.c32.s5.18
⁴ See *ante*, *DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the Paramāras, pp. 904 ff.; also *EI*, Vol. XIX, p. 47.
v2.c32.s5.19
⁵ It has been suggested that he may be a descendant of Pajjuna, who according to tradition was a vassal of Pṛthvīrāja III, see *EI*. Vol. XIX, p. 47. In this connection Dr. Barnett points out that Kūrmācala or the like is a regular term for Kumaon.
v2.c32.s5.20
⁶ *IA*, Vol. VIII, p. 64. The text is *nava-vahni-vahni-bhū*. 1330 A.D. is apparently a printer's mistake.
v2.c32.s5.21
We have the following published records for Hammīra's reign:
v2.c32.s5.22
(1) *Balvan stone-inscription.*—Found engraved on a stone slab built into a niche of the reservoir in front of the temple of Kavāljī (Kapālīśvara), in the Balvan estate of the Kotah principality of Rajputana. It contains 39 lines of writing which open with invocations to Gaṇeśa and Kapālīśvara (Śiva). Then follows a description of the surroundings of the temple, close to which, we are told, flow the rivers Cakraṭaṭinī,¹ Mandākinī² and Ketumukhā. Next follows the name of the Cāhamāna Pṛthvīrāja (Vs. 4-5): In his family was Vāgbhaṭadeva (V. 6); after him (*tato*) Jaitrasiṁha (Vs. 7-8); then came Hammīra (Vs. 9-12). The next verses describe the family of the Kāṭāriyā Kāyastha Narapati, who had originally migrated from Mathurā and had served as the chief minister (*mantri-mukhya*) of both Jaitrasiṁha and Hammīra (V. 35). Their pedigree is as follows:—
v2.c32.s5.23
¹ Modern Chākana which flows to the left of the Kāvaljī's temple: *EI*, Vol. XIX pp. 45-47.
v2.c32.s5.24
² Modern Madākana which flows behind the temple, *ibid.*
v2.c32.s5.25
``` Ananta
v2.c32.s5.26
Sedhā
v2.c32.s5.27
Śrīdhara
v2.c32.s5.28
Lakṣmaṇa
v2.c32.s5.29
Pūrṇapāla
v2.c32.s5.30
Yamunāpāla
v2.c32.s5.31
| Devarāja
| |
v2.c32.s5.32
Somana = Somaladevī
v2.c32.s5.33
Narapati = Nayaśrī . . . . . | . . . . .
v2.c32.s5.34
Padmasiṁha Thīrū Lola Lakṣmīdhara Soma
v2.c32.s5.35
Mokṣasiṁha Gāṅgadeva Jayasīṁha ______|______
v2.c32.s5.36
Keśava Soḍha ```
v2.c32.s5.37
Both Narapati and his wife Nayaśrī were eminent for their many acts of charity. The *praśasti* was composed by Vaijāditya, who was the *Paurāṇika* in the court of Hammīra (V. 39). Then come the date (V.) *Saṁvat* 1345 (*c.* 1289 A.D.), and lastly the name of the *Sūtradhāra* Gājuka, who had engraved the record.¹
v2.c32.s5.38
¹ First noticed in *RMR*, 1921, pp. 2-4. Now edited by R. R. Halder in *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 45-52.
v2.c32.s5.39
(2) *Gadha memorial-tablet.*—This was found at Gadha, in Sheopur District, Gwalior State. It belongs to the reign of *M.* Hammīra-deva.²
v2.c32.s5.40
² Noticed in *ASI*, 1916-17, Part I, p. 20.
v2.c32.s5.41
According to Nayacandra, Hammīra ascended the throne in V.S. 1339 (A.D. 1283), and was killed by ‘Alā ud-Dīn (A.D. 1296-1316) in the 18th year of his reign (A.D. 1301). He is represented by the author as a great conqueror.³ During the course of his warlike expeditions he is said to have defeated Arjuna of Sarasapūra, the prince of Gaḍhamaṇḍala⁴ and Bhoja of Dhārā, ‘the friend of poets.’ After defeating Bhoja he is said to have reached Ujjain, where his army bathed in the Kṣiprā (Siprā ?), and he offered his devotions at the shrine of Mahākāla. From Ujjain Hammīra marched to Citrakoṭa (Chitor) and after ravaging Medapāṭa (Mewar) went to the Arbudādri (Mt. Abu). Here he worshipped at the temple of Ṛṣabhadeva, and having bathed in the Mandākinī paid his devotions to Acaleśvara. The king of Abu, though a brave warrior, had to submit to Hammīra. Leaving Abu, he arrived at Vardhanapura (Wadhwan), which he plundered. Then he proceeded by way of Ajayameru (Ajmer) to Puṣkara, where he worshipped the Ādivarāha. From Puṣkara he repaired to
v2.c32.s5.42
³ Śārṅgadhara in his *Paddhati* refers to the Cāhuvāṇa king Hammīra of Sākambharī-deśa as follows:—
v2.c32.s5.43
⁴ Must be the Gond ruler of that place, see *CHI*, Vol. III, p. 516; also *DHNI*, Vol. II, p. 785.
v2.c32.s5.44
Purā Sākambharī-deśe Śrīmān-Hammīra bhūpati
Cāhuvānānvaye jātaḥ khyātaḥ śauryaḥ ivarjjuna ;
v2.c32.s5.45
*Śārṅgadhara-paddhati*, Ed. by Peter Peterson, Bombay Sanskrit Series, No. XXXVII, p. 1, *Śloka* 2. I am indebted for this reference to Prof. G. Majumdar of the Presidency College, Calcutta. The anthology was composed in 1363 A.D. Śārṅgadhara’s grandfather Rāghavadeva was a courtier of Hammīra. Śārṅgadhara is credited with the composition of a *Kāvya* named *Hammīra-rāso*; but no copy of this work has yet been discovered.
v2.c32.s5.46
Sākambharī, and after plundering some other places on the route reached his capital, where the great officers of the State, headed by Dharmasiṁha, received him.¹ After finishing this triumphal march of conquest and after consultation with his spiritual guide Viśvarūpa as to the efficacy of the *Koṭi-yajña*, he performed that sacrifice and sumptuously feasted the Brāhmaṇs and gave them liberal *dakṣiṇās*. In the meantime Allāvadinā (‘Alā ud-Dīn), who had ascended the throne of Delhi, finding that Hammīra had ceased to pay the tribute which Jaitrasiṁha used to pay, instructed his brother Ullukhāna (Ulugh Khān) to invade the Cāhamāna territory. Nayacandra then describes in great detail the various conflicts between the armies of ‘Alāud-Dīn and the Cāhamānas. In one of the early conflicts, after gaining some minor advantages, Bhīmasiṁha, one of Hammīra's two generals, was defeated and killed by Ulugh. The other general, Dharmasiṁha, whom the king accused of deserting Bhīma, was disgraced, blinded, and castrated. He was then superseded by Bhoja, a natural brother of the king. This was the beginning of dissensions and treachery in the Cāhamāna court. When Dharmasiṁha, through the assistance of the courtezan Rādhādevī, succeeded in recovering his position, Bhoja was disgraced, and in disgust joined the Muslim side. Treachery combined with the repeated attacks of ‘Alā ud-Dīn at last brought about the downfall of Hammīra. He was killed, after a desperate resistance, in the month of Srāvaṇa, in the 18th year of his reign.²
v2.c32.s5.47
¹ IX, 15 ff.
v2.c32.s5.48
² *IA*, Vol. VIII, 64 ff.
v2.c32.s5.49
Nayacandra's story of Hammīra's victories is unsupported by reliable evidence, with the possible exception of one incident, his victory over Arjuna of Sarasapura. In his Balvan inscription mentioned above, Hammīra is credited with a victory over one Arjuna, ‘thereby depriving Mālava of the fame and glory which it then enjoyed.’³ Probably the Arjuna of the *Hammīra-mahākāvya* is identical with the Arjuna of the inscription. I have already tentatively accepted him as a Paramāra ruler, and probably the predecessor of Bhoja II of Dhārā.¹ But it is not impossible that both of them were contemporaries ruling over different portions of the disintegrated Paramāra dominions.
v2.c32.s5.50
³ *EI*, Vol. XIX, pp. 45 ff. For details see *IA*, Vol. VIII, pp. 65 ff.
v2.c32.s5.51
¹ *Supra, DHNI*, Vol. II, chapter on the *Paramāras*, pp. 906-07 and 928.
v2.c32.s5.52
But though there is hardly any evidence for the alleged victories of Hammīra, Nayacandra's account of the conflicts between Hammīra and ‘Alā ud-Dīn and the tragic end of the Cāhamāna after a stubborn resistance, is, substantially attested by Muslim evidence. A contemporary Amīr Khusrau in his *Ta’rīkh-i ‘Alāī* describes in some detail the siege of Ranthambhor. The ‘Saturnian Hindus,’ says the writer, ‘bravely resisted all the attempts of the Muslims to capture the fort,’ till “no provisions remained in the fort, and famine prevailed to such an extent that a grain of rice was purchased for two grains of gold.” Seeing no hope of success, “one night the Rai lit a fire at the top of the hill, and threw his women and family into the flames, and rushing on the enemy with a few devoted adherents, they sacrificed their lives in despair. On the fortunate date of the 3rd of Zī-lka’da A. H. 700 (July, 1301 A.D.), this strong fort was taken by the slaughter of the stinking Rāī. Jhāīn was also captured, ‘an iron fort, an ancient abode of idolatry, and a new city of the people of the faith arose.’ The temple of Bāhir Deo, and the temples of other gods, were all rased to the ground.”[’]² The account of the desperate resistance of Hammīra is also found in Baranī's *Ta’rīkh-i-Fīrūz Shāhī*.³ Baranī relates that the attack on Ranthambhor began as early as the reign of Jalāl ud-Dīn Fīrūz (1290-96 A.D.). The Sulṭān in A. H. 689 (A. D. 1290) led an army to Ranthambhor. The Rāī of the place with his Rāwats and followers, together with their wives and children, all took refuge in the fort of Rantambhor. The Sulṭān wished to invest and take the fort. He ordered *manjanīks* to be erected, funnels to be sunk and redoubts to be constructed, and the siege to be pressed…… But after reconnoitring the fort, he found that it could not be taken without sacrificing the lives of many Musalmans………… .. So he raised the siege and next day departed for Delhi.'' ‘Alā ud-Dīn (1296-1316 A. D.) soon after his accession renewed the efforts of his uncle to take the fort. The immediate cause of his attack was the asylum which Hamīr Deo, its chief, gave to a body of ‘new Musalmāns’ who had rebelled against the Sulṭān after the conquest of Gujarat in 1297 A. D. During the first attempt in 1300 A.D., when Ulugh Khān and Nuṣrat Khān were besieging the fort, the latter was fatally wounded by a stone shot from a *maghribi* in it, and died two or three days after. It was only after repeated attempts that “the Sulṭān succeeded in reducing Rantambhor………… with much bloodshed and difficulty. He slew Hamīr Deo, the Rai, and all the new Musalmans, who had fled from the rebellion in Gujarat, and had taken refuge with him. The fort and all its territories and appurtenances were placed under the charge of Ulugh Khān, and the Sulṭān returned to Delhi.’’¹ This account is fully corroborated by Firishta,² who adds the information that after the death of Nuṣrat Khān, Hamīr Deo³ “marched out from the fort, and gave battle, having collected within a short time 200,000 men.
v2.c32.s5.53
² *Elliot*, Vol. III, pp. 74-76.
v2.c32.s5.54
³ *Ibid*, pp. 146 ff. and 171 ff. Both Baranī and Niẓām ud-Dīn (*TA*, Trans., p. 163) use the word *nabsah* to express the relationship between ‘Hamīr Deo’ and ‘Rāī Pithaura of Delhi.’ It is usually translated as ‘grandson.’ Elliot (Vol. III, p. 171, fn. 2) pointed out that it is probably loosely used to mean a ‘descendant.’ See also *TA*, Trans., p. 163, fn. 2.
v2.c32.s5.55
¹ *Elliot*, Vol. III, pp. 178-79. For a Rajput tradition that Hammīra had a son, who fled to Mewar after the capture of Ranthambhor by ‘Ala ud-Din, see *Mahārāṇā-yaśa-prakāśa*, pp. 14-15; also *IHQ*, 1931, p. 291 and fn. 2 on the same page.
v2.c32.s5.56
² *TF*, Briggs’ Trans., Vol. I, pp. 301-02 and 337 ff.; see also *TA*, Trans., pp. 163 ff.
v2.c32.s5.57
³ Briggs spells the name as ‘Humbur Dew.’
v2.c32.s5.58
With this force he compelled Aluf Khan to fall back to Jhayin,¹ with great loss.''
v2.c32.s5.59
¹ Jhāin (Ujjain).
v2.c32.s5.60
Before concluding the account of the Cāhamānas of this branch, I would briefly refer to the prince called by Minhāj, 'Chāhar-i-Ajār'² who ruled contemporaneously with Nāṣir ud-Dīn Maḥmūd, the Sulṭān of Delhi (A. D. 1246-66). Minhāj describes him as 'the greatest of all the Rāes' in the tract of country known as, 'Gwāliyūr, Chandīrī, Nurwur and Mālwah.' He had 'about 500 horsemen well trained to arms, and 200,000 footmen.' The Hindu prince, we are told, was defeated, 'and the fortress which had been constructed by him, among defiles and passes was taken and plundered.' This happened in A. H. 649 (A. D. 1251). Firishta names the newly built fort 'Nurwar.'³ This prince has been identified by Cunningham⁴ with Cāhaḍa Deva of Narwar, for whom as well as for his son Asaladeva, we have inscriptions in the fort of Narwar. The coins of Cāhaḍadeva, discovered by Cunningham, range from V. S. 1294 (?) to 1311 (*c.* 1237-54 A. D.). The coins of his son Asaladeva range from V. S. 1311 to 1336 (*c.* 1254-79 A. D.). The Kuharas *Satī* pillar-inscription of his time is dated in V. S. 1327 (A. D. 1270). The names of two successors of Asaladeva, his son Gopāla and his grandson Gaṇapati, are known from the Narwar inscription of the last prince, dated in V. S. 1355 (A. D. 1298). Cunningham guessed that Gaṇapati's principality must have been annexed to the Muslim empire during the vigorous reign of 'Alā ud-Dīn (*c.* A. D. 1296-1316). The family name of Cāhaḍa and his descendants was unknown to Cunningham. It seems now to be revealed by the fortunate discovery of the fragmentary *Rataul grant of Mahākumāra Cāhaḍadeva*,⁵ found by diggers at the village of Rataul, Tahsil Baghpat, District Meerut. The preserved portion of the genealogy mentions the Cāhamāna Arṇorāja and Pṛthvīrāja. The last verse preserved begins with ‘*Pṛthvīrājasya.*’ As the name of *Mahākumāra Cāhaḍadeva* is engraved on the top of the plate, he was apparently the donor of the grant, and may possibly have been a descendant of Pṛthvīrāja III. In the annals of Tod, one Cāhaḍadeva is given as the brother of Pṛthvīrāja.¹ At present it would perhaps be idle to try to guess the exact relationship, but it seems possible that the Cāhaḍadeva of the grant and that of the coins and inscriptions of Narwar are identical, and were probably connected by blood with the Cāhamānas of Sākambharī. Sahni has pointed out the resemblance of the coins of Cāhaḍadeva and the Cāhamānas.² I am unable to say what connection, if any, Cāhaḍadeva had with the Ranthambhor line.
v2.c32.s5.61
² TN, Vol. I, pp. 690-91; also fn. 1 on p. 690.
v2.c32.s5.62
³ *TF*, Briggs' Trans., Vol. I, p. 239. Briggs spells the king's name as 'Jahir Dew.'
v2.c32.s5.63
⁴ *ASR*, Vol. II, pp. 314-16; *CMI*, 92-93.
v2.c32.s5.64
⁵ Edited by D. R. Sahni, *EI*, Vol. XII, pp. 221-24.
v2.c32.s5.65
¹ *IA*, Vol. VII, p. 59.
v2.c32.s5.66
² *EI*, Vol. XII, p. 224.
Linked texts (4)
- Hammīramahākāvya — Nayacandrasūri, Sanskrit
- Mandu
- Śārṅgadharapaddhati — Śārṅgadhara, Sanskrit
- Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf