Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, or the Central and Western Rajput States of India v2.c28.222

v2.c28.222

Death of Parvez, A.D. 1626.—Khurram felt his superiority over his elder brother, Parvez, in all but the accidental circumstance of birth. He was in every respect a better man, and a braver and more successful soldier; and, having his ambition thus early nurtured by the stimulants administered by Bhim of Mewar, and the intrepid Mahabat,⁴ he determined to remove this barrier between him and the crown. His views were first developed whilst leading the armies in the Deccan, and he communicated them to Raja Gaj of Marwar, who held the post of honour next the prince, and solicited his aid to place him on the throne. Gratitude for the favours heaped upon him by the king, as well as the natural bias to Parvez, made the Raja turn a deaf ear to his application. The prince tried to gain his point through Govinddas, a Rajput of the Bhatti tribe, one of the foreign nobles of Maru, and confidential adviser of his prince ; but, as the annals say, “ Govinddas reckoned no one but his master and the [43] king.” Frustrated in this, Khurram saw no hopes of success but by disgusting the Rathors, and he caused the faithful Govinddas to be assassinated by Kishan Singh ;¹ on which Raja Gaj, in disgust, threw up his post, and marched to his native land. From the assassination of Parvez, which soon followed,² the deposal of his father appeared but a step; and Khurram had collected means, which he deemed adequate to the design, when Jahangir appealed to the fidelity of the Rajputs, to support him against filial ingratitude and domestic treason ; and, in their general obedience to the call, they afforded a distinguished proof of the operation of the first principle, Gaddi-ka-an, allegiance to the throne, often obeyed without reference to the worth of its occupant. The princes of Marwar, Amber, Kotah, and Bundi put themselves at the head of their household retainers on this occasion, which furnishes a confirmation of a remark already made, that the respective annals of the States of Rajasthan so rarely embrace the contemporaneous events of the rest, as to lead to the conclusion that by the single force of each State this rebellion was put down. This remark will be further exemplified from the annals of Bundi.