The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c35: Chapter XIX. Conclusion
The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v2.c35
- Language
- English
Chapter XIX. Conclusion
v2.c35.2
In the preceding pages I have endeavoured to give an account of the more important dynasties which ruled in Northern India during the period of transition that intervened between the decline of the Hindu power and the gradual conquest and consolidation of the country by the Muslims. The conquering zeal of the Arabs was checked by the impenetrable bulwark of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire, and languished in the sands of Sind. The Muslim conquest did not really begin till the decline of the Pratīhāra empire and the arrival of the Turk on the Indian frontier in the 10th century A. D. Before the Turks' conquest of Northern India was completed, new tribes began to pour through the gates of the Hindukush and challenged their authority. It was only an accident that the religion of some of the new comers happened to be Islam.
v2.c35.3
Analytical study of all the Hindu dynasties that ruled during the period under survey reveals no central theme in their political history. Kanauj was on the decline and its hegemony challenged on every side. I am rather sceptical about the stories of the later writers that they ever showed any genuine appreciation of the danger threatening their independence and religion sufficient to unite them in a common effort to check the advance of the enemy. They failed to produce a ruler like Candragupta Maurya, who could merge the various conflicting interests under one flag by the prowess of his sword and oppose the invader with the resources of an empire. Nor like the Greeks could they devise any machinery for acting in concert under a common leader against the invaders. For the greater part of this period we have to deal with separate units whose only political contact with their neighbour was when they fought with each other or combined to destroy a hated and powerful rival. For practical purposes we may divide the period under survey into the following five heads :
v2.c35.4
(1) The period c. 915 to 998 A.D.
v2.c35.5
From the decline of the Gurjara-Pratīhāra empire to the accession of Maḥmūd of Ghazni.
v2.c35.6
(2) The period c. 998 to 1030 A.D.
v2.c35.7
Age of Sulṭān Maḥmūd.
v2.c35.8
(3) The period c. 1030 to 1179 A.D.
v2.c35.9
From the death of Maḥmūd to the accession of Cāhamāna Pṛthvīrāja III.
v2.c35.10
(4) The period c. 1179 to 1200 A.D.
v2.c35.11
Age of Pṛthvīrāja and the passing away of Hindu ascendency in the Madhyadeśa.
v2.c35.12
(5) The period after 1200 A.D.
v2.c35.13
Gradual penetration of Islamic power into the outlying parts of India.
v2.c35.14
During the first period (c. 915-98 A.D.) the power of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras of Kanauj steadily declined. The outlying provinces slowly broke away from the imperial structure and set up independent governments. The period of transition and political readjustment which had always intervened between the fall of one imperial power and the rise of another in India had already begun. Among the many tribes and princes struggling to capture the sceptre of the effete Pratīhāra princes we notice the two outstanding figures of the Paramāra Vākpati Muñja (c. 974-95 A.D.) and the Candella Dhaṅga (c. 954-1008 A.D.).
v2.c35.15
the *Gesta Romanorum*, the *Legenda Aurea* of Jacobus de Voragine, and the *Speculum Historiale* of Vincent of Beauvais. These were the books that fed the imagination of the Middle Ages, and they were the books that the Church, in its wisdom, provided for the instruction and edification of the faithful.
v2.c35.16
But the Church did not merely provide books; it also provided the means of their dissemination. The monastic scriptoria, where monks labored in silence to copy the sacred texts, were the precursors of the printing press. And when the press finally arrived, it was the Church that first harnessed its power, using it to spread the word of God to the corners of the earth. The Gutenberg Bible, the first major book printed in Europe, was a testament to the Church's commitment to the written word.
v2.c35.17
Yet, even as the Church championed the spread of knowledge, it also sought to control it. The *Index Librorum Prohibitorum*, or List of Prohibited Books, was a tool used by the Church to suppress ideas it deemed dangerous or heretical. This tension between the desire to educate and the need to control would define the Church's relationship with literature for centuries to come.
v2.c35.18
It is a complex history, one that is marked by both enlightenment and suppression. But it is a history that cannot be ignored, for it is the history of the very foundation of Western civilization. The Church, in its role as the guardian of knowledge, has shaped the way we think, the way we write, and the way we understand the world around us.
v2.c35.20
Both literary and epigraphic records are unanimous in testifying to the military ability of Muñja. Before his death he had unquestionably made himself the most important prince in Western India. But the promise of a brilliant and unifying force in the troubled history of India was destroyed when he met his tragic fate in one of his campaigns beyond the Godavari. There was however still some hope in the growing power of the Candellas, who were slowly building up a strong kingdom in the South-Central portion of Northern India. During his reign of nearly half a century Dhaṅga had gradually extended his authority over the whole tract lying to the south of Jumna and bounded roughly on the east and west by the Son and the Chambal. But before this power had time to spread itself in the North-West the Turks had established themselves on the Indian frontier. Alp-tigīn (c. 933-63 A.D.) founded his principality in Ghaznī in c. 993 A.D. ; and during his lifetime his general Sabuk-tigīn had already commenced his predatory incursions in the provinces of Lamghan and Multan. When the latter ascended to the throne in 977 A.D. the Turkish attack was developed on a more ambitious scale. The Sāhis of Afghanistan and the Punjab were brave and plucky fighters ; but they proved no match for the new enemy. In spite of the bold resistance of their kings and their allies they were gradually pushed out of Afghanistan, and by the year 997 A.D. when Sabuk-tigīn died, the Turks were masters of Lamghan and Peshawar.
v2.c35.21
With the accession of Mahmūd, the son of Sabuk-tigīn, in A.D. 998, the second period begins. The two outstanding personalities among the Indian princes are again supplied by the Paramāras and the Candellas. In the former dynasty flourished Bhoja (c. 1010-55 A. D.), who gradually won back the position which had been lost after the defeat and death of Muñja, while in the latter Vidyādhara ruled. Vidyādhara's grandfather Dhaṅga seems to have outlived Sabuk-tigīn and probably witnessed the practical downfall of the Sāhis in 1008 A.D. Vidyādhara ascended the Candella throne some time before 1019 A.D. At that date he had become so prominent as to be described by Muslim historians as the most powerful Indian prince of the time. There seems to be sufficient evidence to indicate that the Candellas made a bold bid to grasp the crown of Imperialism which had fallen from the heads of the unworthy successors of Mahendrapāla I. If fortune had been favourable, they might perhaps have once again combined a substantial portion of Northern India under their rule, and thus created some unity in the confused currents of its history during this period. But this was not to be. Unfortunately for them, they were confronted by one of the greatest military leaders that the Turks had ever produced. Under the able generalship of Maḥmūd the Turkish bands with their insatiable lust for plunder and destruction were organised into one of the most efficient engines of war. For more than thirty years they pillaged, burned and devastated the rich plains, cities and temples of the Indus and the Ganges valleys. Even the distant temple of Somnath had to yield up to them its hoarded treasures. The Paramāra Bhoja seems not to have come into serious conflict with the Muslims and the brunt of the attack fell upon the Sāhis and Candellas. The former were exterminated as a power in the Punjab, while the latter, though saved from complete destruction, found themselves unequal to the task of offering effective resistance to the vandalism of the Turk. Vidyādhara, in spite of his undoubted military ability, seems to have failed to achieve any practical results in the open field. Though Maḥmūd could not capture Kalinjar and failed to penetrate into the plains of Kashmir, and though most of his expeditions were for plunder and not for conquest, yet the Turkish power during his reign had gradually advanced into a permanent position in the Western Punjab and Northern Sind. Multan and Lahore became the two outposts of the Muslims in the valley of the Punjab rivers.
v2.c35.22
The period (c. 1030-79 A.D.) which followed the death of Maḥmūd in 1030 A.D. was marked by a gradual weakening of Turkish pressure on the plains of India. Though the Yamīnīs certainly continued to raid the territories of the neighbouring princes and once—about 1033 A.D., in the reign of Mas‘ūd I (1030-40 A.D.)—are reported to have advanced as far east as Benares, they failed to produce during the period a single king or general who could even approach Maḥmūd in military skill and leadership. In the east the same thing happened in the kingdom of the Candellas. The successors of Vidyādhara lacked the ability of their illustrious predecessor and the vision of an empire-builder, and failed to profit by the weakness of their neighbours. The position that they occupied in the South-Central portion of Northern India gradually slipped into the hands of the Ḍahala Kalacuris, who in Gāṅgeyadeva Vikramāditya (c. 1030-41 A.D.) and Lakṣmī-Karṇa (c. 1041-70 A.D.) produced two men of outstanding personality. The latter formed an alliance with the Caulukya Bhīma I (c. 1022-64 A.D.) and the Karṇāṭas and defeated and probably killed the Paramāra Bhoja (c. 1010-55 A.D.) of Dhārā. By unceasing military activity Lakṣmī-Karṇa extended his dominions from Western Bengal to the borders of Gujarat. In the North he suppressed the independence of the Candellas, and became the unquestioned arbiter of a large portion of the Ganges-Jumna valley. Indian history seemed at last to find a personality who could emulate the achievements of the Puṣyabhūti Harṣa or the Gurjara-Pratīhāra Nāgabhaṭa II and Bhoja I, but again this hope was unrealised. The edifice of the Kalacuri empire, it seems, was built on unstable foundations; and when Lakṣmī-Karṇa was overwhelmed by a series of defeats, his empire like that of Napoleon, collapsed with him. The position left vacant in the Ganges-Jumna valley by the fall of the Kalacuris was then occupied by the Gāhaḍavālas. Govindacandra of this dynasty ascended the throne in the first decade of the 12th century, and for nearly fifty years ruled over a strong kingdom which seems to have included almost the whole of the modern U. P.
v2.c35.23
and Behar. He was sufficiently powerful to offer effective resistance to the feeble attempts of the Yamīnīs to penetrate into the Ganges-Jumna valley but neither he nor his dynasty showed any outstanding vigour or ability. In the South-East the dynasties of Orissa and the Ganjam and Vizagapatam districts of the Madras Presidency were welded into a single administration by the Gaṅga king Coḍagaṅga-Anantavarman (c. 1076-1147 A. D.). His dominions seem to have sometimes extended from the lower courses of the Godavari to the Ganges; but here also there is no sign that either he or his successor wished or had ability to plan a North Indian Empire. In the Western portion of North India the fall of the Paramāras synchronised with the rise into importance of the Caulukyas of Aṇahilapāṭaka and the Cāhamānas of Sākambharī. In the first half of the 12th century the former in the reign of Jayasiṃha Siddharāja (c. 1094-1144) united under their sway, in addition to Gujarat and Kathiawar, large portions of Central India and Rajputana. The success of Jayasiṃha was fully maintained by his successor Kumārapāla (c. 1144-73 A.D.) During the first half of the 12th century the Cāhamānas had also established a strong kingdom in Rajputana with Sākambharī as their capital. They were undoubtedly the most considerable power in Rajputana during this period, and maintained contact with the growing kingdom of the Caulukyas on their southwestern frontier. Sometime before 1164 A.D. they advanced into the Punjab and appear to have included under their sway most of the territories which now lie to the east of the Sutlej. This brought them into conflict with the declining Yamīnī Sultanate of Lahore and Ghazni and the Gāhaḍavālas of Kanauj and Benares. In the first half of the 12th century the position of the former was growing precarious owing to the pressure both of the Cāhamānas on the east and of the rising of the Shansabānīs of Ghūr. Before this period was over, fresh bands of Turks under the leadership of the princes of Ghūr had begun their depredations in India, In 1175 A.D. Mu'izzudthe *Gesta Romanorum*, the *Legenda Aurea* of Jacobus de Voragine, and the *Speculum Historiale* of Vincent of Beauvais. These were the books that fed the imagination of the Middle Ages, and they were the books that the Church, in its wisdom, provided for the instruction and edification of the faithful.
v2.c35.24
But the Church did not merely provide books; it also provided the means of their dissemination. The monastic scriptoria, where monks labored in silence to copy the sacred texts, were the precursors of the printing press. And when the press finally arrived, it was the Church that first harnessed its power, using it to spread the word of God to the corners of the earth. The Gutenberg Bible, the first major book printed in Europe, was a testament to the Church's commitment to the written word.
v2.c35.25
Yet, even as the Church championed the spread of knowledge, it also sought to control it. The *Index Librorum Prohibitorum*, or List of Prohibited Books, was a tool used by the Church to suppress ideas it deemed dangerous or heretical. This tension between the desire to educate and the need to control would define the Church's relationship with literature for centuries to come.
v2.c35.26
It is a complex history, one that is marked by both enlightenment and suppression. But it is a history that cannot be ignored, for it is the history of the very foundation of Western civilization. The Church, in its role as the guardian of knowledge, has shaped the way we think, the way we write, and the way we understand the world around us.
v2.c35.27
Dīn Muḥammad ibn Sām had captured Multan and Uch, and though repulsed in 1178 A.D. in his attempt upon Anahilvada, had recovered sufficiently to capture Peshawar in the following year (1179 A.D.) from the Yamīnī Khusrau Malik (c. 1160-86 A.D.).
v2.c35.28
The accession of Pṛthvīrāja III (c. 1179-92 A.D.) to the throne of Śākambharī in about 1179 A.D. brings us to the next period (c. 1179-1200 A.D.). The records of this period seem to indicate that Pṛthvīrāja was the most important figure in the last quarter of the 12th century. His dominions included most of modern Rajputana and extended roughly from the Sutlej to the Betwa and possibly to the Ken, skirting the river Jumna on the north. The activities of the Caulukyas were paralysed by intrigue and dissensions, while the Senas and the Gaṅgas were far distant from the North-Western frontier of India. By his victories over the Cāndellas and the Gāhaḍavālas and his command over the cis-Sutlej districts, he had constituted himself the main barrier against the advance of the Turks from the Indus Valley. If the Yamīnīs could have held the new body of Turks in check for some time, there was just a possibility that Pṛthvīrāja with his undoubted military ability, might have so consolidated his dominions, as to be able to offer an effective check to the advance of the new invaders. But the descendants of Maḥmūd were too enfeebled to be able to save themselves from destruction. In A. D. 1186, Mu'izz ud-Dīn captured Lahore from the last representative of the Yamīnīs, and the Shansabānīs and Cāhamānas stood face to face. The victory in the second battle of Tarā'īn in 1192 A.D., which appears to have been won by superior generalship as well as by perfidy, practically put an end to the domination of the Madhyadeśa by the Hindus. The defeat of the Gāhaḍavālas was only a matter of detail.
v2.c35.29
In the period that followed, the Turks issued from their bases in the Madhyadeśa under intrepid and able adventurers to bring about the downfall of the dynasties that ruled in more distant parts of Northern and Peninsular India. As I have already noticed, this process took a long time to complete, and was not attended with uniform success. Before it was finished, fresh bands from Central Asia had burst through the North-Western gates and were challenging the authority of the Muslim conquerors of India. The latter at last fell before these newcomers, and it was a mere accident, as I have said, that their conquerors were again Muslims. So history once more repeated itself.
v2.c35.30
As to the causes that lead to the success of the Muslims and the downfall of the Hindus, various reasons have been advanced by various scholars. Indian climate, deadening effect of the caste system, the demoralising influence of the cult of ahiṃsā preached by Buddhism and Jainism, a false sense of chivalry and other factors have been held to contribute to the overthrow of the Hindu dynasties. I am unable to discuss this question without a thorough analysis of the administrative, economic, religious and social systems of the period, which I hope to undertake in the third volume of this work. I would therefore reserve the discussion of the question for the present. But whatever factors are found by later investigations to have contributed to the downfall of the Hindus and the victory of Islam, it appears to me that the vigour and the insatiable thirst for plunder and destruction of the roving and hungry bands of Central Asia, which was strengthened by their own interpretation of Islam, and the superior generalship of their leaders, must have played a large part in the success of the Turks. The Indians were not less brave; but they failed to produce a Maḥmūd or a Mu‘izz-ud-Dīn.¹
v2.c35.31
¹ Prof. Dodwell very kindly suggested that I should expand these concluding remarks into the size of one of my bigger chapters say of about hundred pages or more. This would make my conclusions on the period accessible to the students of some of the British Universities who have not got enough time to go through all these details. Unfortunately the size of the two volumes has already become rather inconveniently large. So I am preparing a small volume entirely devoted to a synthetic survey of the period to suit the requirements of these students.
v2.c35.32
Dynasties and the Territories controlled by them chronologically arranged.
v2.c35.33
| A. D. | Dynasties. | Territories.¹ |
| *c.* 500—600 :— | 1. *Guhila-putras* (Guhilots). | Idar State in the North Division of the Bombay Presidency (?). |
| | 2. *Cāhamānas* (Cauhans). | Sambhar (*Śākambharī*) region in Rajputana (?). |
| *c.* 600—700 :— | 1. *Guhila-putras* (Guhilots): Two branches. | (i) Mewar (*Medapāṭa*), Rajputana : Centre of power *Nāgadraha* or *Nāgahrada* (mod. Nagda). |
| | | (ii) From Dabok in Udaipur (Mewar) State in the south to Chatsu in Jaipur on the north, in Rajputana : Capital probably *Dhavagarta* (mod. Dhod) in Jahazpur District, Udaipur or at Chatsu, Jaipur, Rajputana. |
| | 2. *Cāhamānas* | No change. |
| *c.* 700—800 :— | 1. *Guhila-putras* (Guhilots). | No change. |
| | 2. *Cāhamānas* (Cauhans) | No change. |
| | 3. *Haihayas* (Kalacuris). | Round about Kahla in Gorakhpur, U. P. |
| | 4. *Tomaras* (Tuars) | Delhi (*Yoginī-pura*, *Ḍhillikā*) and neighbouring regions (?). |
v2.c35.34
¹ The territories must in every case be taken as only a rough indication. Exact delimitation of boundaries is not possible at this stage of our knowledge.
v2.c35.35
| *A.D.* | *Dynasties.* | *Territories.* |
| *c.* 800—900 :— | 1. *Guhila-putras* (Guhilots). | No change. |
| | 2. *Cāhamānas* (Cauhans). | Portions of Marwar and Jaipur States, Rajputana : Capital *Sākambharī* (mod. Sambhar). |
| | 3. *Haihayas* (Kalacuris) : Two branches. | (i) Round about Kahla in Gorakhpur, U. P. |
| | | (ii) Jubbulpore Division and the neighbouring regions (*Dāhala* in C. P. : Capital *Tripurī* (mod. Tewar). |
| | 4. *Candrātreyas* (Candellas). | Bundelkhand (*Jejā-bhukti*) in C. I. : Capital *Kharjjuravāhaka* (mod. Khajraho). |
| | 5. *Paramāras* (*Pāvars*). | South and Central Gujarat, Bombay. |
| | 6. *Tomaras* (Tuars). | No change. |
| *c.* 900—1000 :— | 1. *Guhila-putras* (Guhilots). | Mewar, region round Partabgarh (in Rajputana), and Mandasor (in C.I.) : Centres of power *Nāgadraha* and *Āghāṭa* (mod. Ahar). |
| | 2. *Cāhamānas* (Cauhans) : Three branches. | (i) Almost the whole of Marwar and Jaipur States and neighbouring regions, in Rajputana (*Sapādalakṣa*) : Capital *Sākambharī*. |
| | | (ii) *Naddūla* (mod. Nadol) and the neighbouring regions in Godwar, Marwar in Rajputana. |
| | | (iii) Partabgarh and the neighbouring regions in South Rajputana States Agency and C. I. |
v2.c35.36
| A.D. | Dynasties. | Territories. |
| c. 900—1000:— | 3. Haihayas (Kalacuris) : Two branches. | (i) Round about Kahla, in Gorakhpur, U. P. |
| | | (ii) Jubbulpore and Chhattisgarh Divisions of C. P., portions of Baghelkhand and neighbouring regions in C. I. : Capital Tripurī. |
| | 4. Candrātreyas (Candellas). | Bundelkhand, Gwalior and portions of Bhopal Residencies in C. I. ; Allahabad, Jhansi and Benares Divisions in U. P. : Centres of power Kharjjuravāhaka and Kālañjara (mod. Kalinjar). |
| | 5. Kacchapaghātas (Kachwāhas). | Portions of both Gwalior Residency (C. I.) and Bharatpur State, Rajputana. |
| | 6. Paramāras (Pāvars). | Western portions of the Northern Division and Khandesh of Bombay ; Indore Residency, Bhopal and portions of Bhopal Agencies in C. I. ; and portions of Aurangabad Division of Hyderabad : Centre of power Ujjayinī (mod. Ujjain). |
| | 7. Caulukyas (Solankis). | North Gujarat, Cutch and Kathiawar in Bombay ; and Sanchor District (Satyapura-maṇḍala) in Marwar, Rajputana : Capital Aṇahilapāṭaka (mod. Anavada, 3 miles from Patan in N. Gujarat). |
| | 8. Tomaras (Tuars). | No change. |
v2.c35.37
| A. D. | Dynasties. | Territories. |
| *c.* 1000—1100 :— | 1. *Guhila-putras* (Guhilots). | Some hilly and inaccessible portions of Medapāṭa (Mewar), Rajputana. |
| | 2. *Cāhamānas* (Cauhans) : Two branches. | (i) Nearly whole of Marwar (or Jodhpur) and Jaipur States and portions of Mewar in Rajputana. Capital *Sākambharī*. |
| | | (ii) *Naḍḍūla* (mod. Nadol) and the neighbouring regions in Marwar, Rajputana. |
| | 3. *Haihayas* (Kalacuris) : Four branches. | (i) Kahla and (ii) Kasia branches in Gorakhpur, U. P. (iii) The *Ḍāhala* branch : (In the last quarter of the century) practically the whole of C. P. and C. I.; the Ganges-Jumna valley (U. P.), Tirhut Division and Shahabad District of Bihar, portions of Chhota Nagpur and Western Bengal : Capital *Tripurī*. (iv) *Tummāṇa* branch in Chhattisgarh Division of C. P. : Centres of power *Tummāṇa* (mod. Tumana in Lapha Zemindari) and Ratnapura (mod. Ratanpur) : both in Bilaspur District, C. P. |
| | 4. *Candrātreyas* (Candellas). | [During the 1st quarter of the century :—] Bundelkhand and portions of Baghelkhand Agencies and portions of Gwalior and Bhopal Residencies in C. I.; Allahabad, Jhansi, Benares and possibly Meerut and Fyzabad Divisions in U. P.; portions of Eastern Rajputana States Agency (Kotah, etc.) and Saugor and Damoh Districts in C. P. |
v2.c35.38
--- | --- | --- c. 1000—1100:— | | [Partial eclipse in the 2nd quarter and complete eclipse in the 3rd.
v2.c35.39
| | Revival of power in the 4th quarter in] Bundelkhand Agency in C. I., and portions of Jhansi Division, U. P.: Centres of power Kharjuravāhaka and Kālañjara.
v2.c35.40
5. | *Kacchapaghātus* (Kachwāhas): Three Branches. | Gwalior Residency, C. I., and portions of Eastern Rajputana States Agency (Bharatpur, etc.): Centres of power of the three branches—(i) Gwalior, (ii) Dubkund and (iii) Narwar.
6. | *Paramāras* (Pāvars): Five branches. | (i) Portions of Rajputana (Sirohi, Mewar, Banswara, Kotah, Bundi, etc.); Central and portions of Northern Divisions of Bombay (Khandesh to Konkan); Hyderabad (north of Godavari), Nerbudda Division, C. P.; and Malwa, Bhopal and Bhopawar Agencies of C. I.: Centres of power Ujjayinī and Dhārā. [Almost complete eclipse during c. 1055-60 A.D. Partial revival in the 2nd half of the century.] Other branches in (ii) Sirohi State (centre of power Candrāvatī), (iii) Banswara State (Vāgaḍa). (iv) Round about Jalor (Jāvalipura) and (v) Kiradu (Kirāṭakupa): all four in Rajputana.
v2.c35.41
| A. D. | Dynasties. | Territories. |
| *c.* 1000—1100:— | 7. Caulukyas (Solaṅkis). | Northern Division (north of Narbada), Gujarat, Kathiawar, and Cutch of Bombay; Sirohi and the neighbouring regions in S. Marwar in Rajputana: Capital Aṇahila-pāṭaka. |
| | 8. Tomaras (Tuars). | No change. |
| *c.* 1100—1200:— | 1. Guhila-pūtras (Guhilots): One main and four minor branches. | [Power still under partial eclipse.] (A) comparatively inaccessible portions of Mewar, Marwar and Dungarpur: Centre of power Ighaṭa (mod. Ahar). (B) Minor branches: (i) in Saurāṣṭra (Kathiawar), (ii) Naḍulāḍigikā (mod. Nadlai in Jodhpur State), (iii) in Dungarpur (Vāgaḍa), and (iv) at Sesoda (in Mewar). |
| | 2. Cāhamānas (Cauhans): One main and four minor branches. | (A) Ambala Division, Patiala, Nabha and portions of Simla Hill States in the Punjab; Jaipur, Alwar, Bikaner, most of Marwar, portions of Mewar, Bundi, Kotah, Tonk, Jhalawar, Karauli, Dholpur, and Bharatpur States in Rajputana; portions of Gwalior Residency and Bundelkhand Agency in C. I.; and Jhansi Division in U. P.: Centres of power Sākambhari (mod. Sambhar) and Ajayameru (mod. Ajmer). (B) Minor branches at (i) Raṇastambhapura (mod. Ranthambhor) in Jaipur State, (ii) |
v2.c35.42
| A.D. | Dynasties. | Territories. |
| *c.* 1100—1200 :— | | Naddūla (mod. Naḍol), (iii) Jāvālipura (mod. Jolor) and (iv) Satyapura (mod. Sanchor); all in Rajputana. |
| 3. | *Haihayas* (Kalacuris) : One main and two minor branches. | (A) Dāhala branch in Jubbulpur Division (south of Bhanrer Range), C.P. and Baghelkhand Agency in C. I. : Centre of power Tripurī (mod. Tewar). (B) Minor branches: (i) Gorakhpur, U. P. (Kasia branch) ; (ii) Tummāṇa branch independently held the Chhattishgarh Division and the neighbouring regions (*Mahā-Kosala*, *Dakṣiṇa-Kosala* or *Kosala*): Centres of power Tummāṇa (mod. Tumana in Lapha Zamindari of Bilaspur District) and Ratnapura (mod. Ratanpur in Bilaspur District). |
| 4. | *Candrātreyas* (Candellas). | Portions of Jhansi Division of U..P., Bhopal, Bundelkhand and portions of Baghelkhand Agencies (north of Kaimur Range) of C. I.; and Saugor and Damoh Districts, in C. P. : Centres of power Kalinjar (*Kālañjura*), Mahoba (*Mahotsavanagara*), Ajaigarh (*Ajayadurga*) and Khajraho (*Kharjjuravāhaka*). |
| | | [Power partially eclipsed in the last quarter of the 12th century.] |
v2.c35.43
| A.D. | Dynasties. | Territories. |
| *c.* 1100—1200 :— | 5. Kacchapaghātas (Kachwāhas) : Two branches. | Portions of Gwalior Residency in C. I. : (*i*) Narwar and (*ii*) Gwalior (?) branches. The latter possibly shifted to Eastern Rajputana in the 2nd quarter of the century with Daosa and then Amber as the centres of its power. |
| | 6. Paramāras (Pāvars) : One main and three minor branches. | (A) (*i*) [During *c.* 1100-1142 and *c.* 1192-1200 A.D.] Indore Residency, Bhopawar, Malwa and portions of Bhopal Agencies in C. I. and portions of Kotah, Tonk and Jhalawar in Rajputana : Centres of power *Ujjayinī* and *Dhārā*. |
| | | (*ii*) [During *c.* 1142-92 A.D.] Power of the main line broken into fragments : (*a*) one fragment probably ruled in portions of Kotah, Tonk and Jhalawar, in Rajputana and the other (*b*) probably in portions of Bhopal Agency, C.I. (B) Minor branches in (*i*) Sirohi (capital *Candrāvati*), (*ii*) Jalor (*Jāvālipura*) and (*iii*) Kiradu (*Kirāta-kūpa*) in Rajputana. |
| | 7. Caulukyas (Solaṅkis) | Portions of Sind, Cutch, Kathiawar, Gujarat, and portions of Konkana in Bombay; almost the whole of Rajputana; and portions of Agra Division in U. P.; portions of Gwalior and and Indore Residencies, Malwa, Bhopawar and portions of Bhopal Agencies in C. I. : Centre of power *Aṇahila-pāṭaka*. |
v2.c35.44
| A.D. | Dynasties. | Territories. |
| *c.* 1100–1200 :— | | [During the 4th quarter of the century the area became much reduced by the loss of control in Konkana in Bombay, portions of Rajputana, and C. I.] |
| *c.* 1200–1300 :— | 1. Guhila-putras (Guhilots) : Two branches. | (i) Mewar and the neighbouring regions, portions of Sirohi and Marwar : Centres of power Nāgadraha (Nagda), Aghāṭa (Ahar) and Citrukūṭa (Chitor). |
| | | (ii) Feudatory branch at Sesoda in Mewar. |
| | 2. Cāhamānas (Cauhans) : Four branches | (i) Region round Ranthambhor (Raṇastambhapura) in Jaipur State, Rajputana ; (ii) Region round Narwar in Gwalior Residency, C. I. (?) ; (iii) Region round (iii) Jāvālipura (Jalor) ; and (iv) Satyapura (Sanchor) in Marwar, Rajputana. |
| | 3. Haihayas (Kalacuris). | Round Tummaṇa (mod. Tumana), Bilaspur District, Chhattisgarh Division (Mahēkosala), C. P. (?) Also in portion of Jubbulpore Division (Dāhala) [as a minor power]. |
| | 4. Candrātreyas (Candellas). | [Eclipse of power during the first few years of the century : Then revival in] Bundelkhand and Baghelkhand Agencies and portions of Gwalior |
v2.c35.45
| A.D. | Dynasties. | Territories. |
| *c.* 1200—1300 :— | | Residency in C. I. Also portions of U. P. (Jhansi Division) : Centres of power Ajaigarh (*Jaya-durga*) and Kalinjar (*Kālañjara*). |
| | 5. *Kacchapaghātas* (*Kachwāhas*). | Region round Amber in Jaipur State, Rajputana : Centre of power Amber. |
| | 6. *Paramāras* (*Pāvars*) : Two branches. | (*i*) Indore and portions of Gwalior Residencies, Malwa, Bhopal and Bhopawar Agencies in C. I. ; Saugor, Narsingpur, Hoshangabad and Nimar Districts of C. P. ; and portions of Gujarat along the lower courses of the Narbada up to the Sae (including Broach) : Centre of power *Dhārā* and *Māṇḍu* [During the 2nd half of the century Paramāra power rapidly declined] ; (*ii*) Minor branch in and round Sirohi : Centre of power at *Candrāvatī*. |
| | 7. *Caulukyas* (*Solaṅkis*). | Portions of Gujarat, Kathiawar, and Cutch in Bombay ; portions of Marwar and Sirohi in Rajputana : Centre of power *Aṇahila-pāṭaka*. [About the 2nd half of the century Caulukyas lose control in Rajputana.] |
| *c.* 1300—1400 :— | 1. *Guhila-putras* (*Guhilots*). | Mewar and the neighbouring regions : Capital *Citrakūṭa* (Chitor). [Power eclipsed *c.* 1303 A.D.] |
v2.c35.46
| A.D. | Dynasties. | Territories. |
| c. 1300—1400 :— | 2. Cāhamānas (Cauhans) : Four branches. | (i) At Jalor (Jāvālipuru), (ii) in Sirohi (capital Candrāvatī, (iii) at Satyapura (Sanchor) and (iv) in Bundi : [All in Rajputana]. |
| | Haihayas (Kalacuris). | Portions of Jubbulpore, and Chattishgarh Divisions of C. P. [in a decadent condition]. |
| | 4. Candrātreyas (Candellas). | Portions of Jhansi Division of U. P. ; Bundelkhand Agency in C. I. ; and Damoh and Jubbulpore Districts in C. P. (?) : Centre of power Kalinjar (Kālānjara). |
| | 5. Kacchapaghātas (Kachwāhas). | Round about Amber in Jaipur State, Rajputana. |
| | 6. Paramāras (Pāvars). | Indore and portions of Gwalior Residency ; Malwa, Bhopal and Bhopawar Agencies (?). |
| | 7. Caulukyas (Solaṅkis). | Portions of Gujarat, Kathiawar and Cutch : Capital Aṇahila-pāṭaka. |