Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c29: Book IV: The Guhilots of Mewad.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c29

Language
English

Contents

Book IV: The Guhilots of Mewad.

v2.c29.2

The foremost and the most renowned among the new royal families which came to the front about the beginning of the ninth century A. D. in consequence of their valorous resistance to the Mahomedan onslaughts on inner India, were undoubtedly the Guhilots of Mewad. We shall begin our history of the second set of Hindu Kingdoms by relating the story of this most chivalrous clan. Tod observes rightly that the Rajput tribes yield unanimous suffrage to the prince of Mewad, the legitimate heir to the throne of Rāma, as the first of the thirty-six royal tribes; and has further properly noted the fact that the State of Mewad is the only one (with the exception of Jaisalmere) which has outlived eight centuries of foreign domination and in the very lands where it was founded in the second half of the 8th century A. D.—a circumstance which certainly adds to the dignity of the Rāṇā of Mewad. But the dignity of the Mewad royal family is not only due to the stability of their rule and dominion but to the long continued and determined resistance which they offered to the Mahomedans in spite of great reverses now and then, a conflict—almost always successful—which has become the most glorious episode in Indian history hallowed by the names of a succession of great heroes such as the legendari Bappā, Khumana, Samarasi, Bhīma, Hamīra Sāṅga, Pratāpa and others. In fact the heroism of this family and its sustained tenacious effort for the preservation of its independence* and its religion are as stable as their fortune and their dominion.

v2.c29.3

Of this most illustrious family Bappā Rāwal was the reputed founder and it is no wonder that many strange legends have gathered round the birth, the youth, the exploits and even the end of this great hero as around the lives of most heroes in ancient and even modern history of the world. Tod has recounted them in his monumental history but we shall content ourselves here with giving the most simple account leaving out all miraculous events and testing each fact in the crucible of probability, aided by inscriptions which too require to be submitted to the same test; for it can never be accepted that because certain facts are recorded on stone or copper they are therefore reliable or true. We find that facts especially those belonging to former times recorded in inscriptions are often based on untrue and unreliable legends and hence the need of applying this same test even to inscriptions. Col. Tod made most searching inquiries about oral and written traditions of this family, collected genealogies and inscriptions and had the advantage of personal acquaintance with the historical localities of Mewad and he has done well in recording traditions which he also looked upon as doubtful. For the shrewd observation of Hume which Tod has quoted must here be borne in mind viz., "poets though they disfigure the most certain history by their fictions and use strange liberties with truth when they are the sole historians have commonly some foundation for their wildest exaggeration." We will use the legends given by Tod in connection with the founder of the Mewad family under the same test in giving the following account, differing in many respects from that of Tod. With due deference to this great historian of the Rajputs, we must say that he was much influenced by the wrong theory of the foreign descent of Rajputs started by him and further observe that historical research was only in its infancy in his days, many inportant and incontrovertible facts being now known or finally established. With these prefatory remarks and duly honouring and recognising the work done by the great historian, we proceed to sketch our story of Bappā Rāwal and his successors during the Mediæval period of Indian history. It may be stated here that Mewad history is certain and unquestionable only from Hamīra onwards, the history of the family from the foundation to the end of the twelfth century A. D. being still shrouded in doubt on many points and our account is only an attempt to rationalize story and is therefore liable to be modified as future research may discover new facts or new arguments.

v2.c29.4

∗ It may be noted that none of the Mewad Chiefs submitted to the Mogul empire entirely or ever attended the Delhi Darbar of the Mogals. Even under the British rule which the family have accepted, the Mewad prince did not attend the last Delhi Darbar alleging their long tradition which the British government was good enough to respect.

v2.c29.5

Bappā Rāwal the reputed founder of the Mewad family was the Charles Martel of India against the rock of whose valour, as we have already said, the eastern tide of Arab conquest was dashed to pieces in India. He was further a contemporary of Charles Martel and strangely enough his life also resembles the life of that hero of the Franks who signally defeated the Arabs in the west and turned the tide of Mahomedan conquest in Western Europe in 732 A. D. Like Charles Martel who was a prince himself being Duke of Austria under the king of France. Bappā Rāwal was a minor prince under the Mori king of Chitore. He ruled in Nagada (Nagahrada) a small town a few miles to the north of Udaipur among Bhils whom he enlisted in his force just as Shivaji in later history enlisted the Mawlas in his fight against Bijapur. He was a small prince or Rāwal a term which does not mean, as Dr. Bhandarkar suggests, an ascetic of a particular sect. The word applied to such ascetics is simply by borrowed meaning for we know that even the word Mahārāja which really signifies a great king is applied to Brahmins and ascetics in a borrowed sense. Rāwal means a small Rao or prince and Bappā Rāwal ruled in Nagada among the hills and ravines inhabited by Bhils of the Aravalli range. He belonged to the Guhila family of Rajputs which was an offshoot from the royal family of Valabhi first established at Idar and subsequently taking refuge from Mahomedan inroads among the hills at Ahara, as usual among the Rajputs throughout their history. To this family belonged Bappā Rāwal a Rajput prince among Bhils with whom he freely associated and whom he disciplined and engaged in service for his own preferment.

v2.c29.6

Like Shivaji, Bappā Rāwal was an intensely religious man and he equally hated the new invaders of India who were cow-killers. From their base in Sind which they had conquered in 712 A. D., the Arabs had begun to overrun India south and east. They had attacked the kingdom of the Moris of Chitore who were, as stated in Volume I, the relatives of Sāhasi king of Sind and who had even laid claim to that kingdom when usurped by Chacha. To traverse deserts was not a difficult task for Arabs and they had begun to harass Chitore with great force. We actually find it recorded in the inscription of the Navasāri Chālukya grant of 739-740 A. D. (Bombay Gazetteer Vol. I part I, p. 465) that the Arabs had attacked the Maurya (necessarily of Chitore) along with Chavoṭaka, Kachchha and other states. Bappā Rāwal was a great devotee of Śiva whose image of Ekalinga was near Nāgadā and a disciple of the noted Śaiva sage who lived there named Hārita. We need not believe the story given in the Achalagada and other inscriptions that Hārita foretold Bappā’s greatness and gave him the golden anklet indicative of sovereignty in return for his devoted services to himself. But we may surmise that Hārita saw the greatness inherent in his disciple and advised him to go to Chitore, enter the king’s service and fight with the infidels, the breakers of idols and killers of cows. Bappā accordingly took service with his clansmen and his Bhils with the Mori king (perhaps he was already a Sāmanta of that king) and soon rose to importance and was chosen as the leader of the forces deputed to repel the recurring Arab invasions. Like Charles Martel, the Mayor of the Palace at Paris, Bappā Rāwal was probably the commander-in-chief of the Mori forces opposed to the Arabs and like Charles Martel Bappā seems to have achieved a signal victory over them. Naturally his renown was now greater than ever. We do not believe the legend that the Sardars of Chitore hereafter revolted and deposing the Mori king of Chitore placed the crown on Bappā’s head. Bappā was too religiously minded to depose his king; although such an event is not unlikely. Like Charles Martel’s son Pepin who, setting aside Childeric, the puppet king of the Merovingian line on the throne of Paris, himself became king of the Franks, Bappā might have, from the renown and power which he had acquired by his signal defeat of the Arabs, set aside the decrepit Mori king; but we prefer to believe that the then Mori king of Chitore died childless like Sāhasi in Sind or like Shahu at Satara in Maratha history, and Bappā became the king of Chitore like Chacha in Sind or the Peshwa Nanasaheb in Poona. Whatever the nature of the revolution, it is certain that the Mori line ceased and Bappā the conqueror of the Mahomedans founded an illustrious line of kings at Chitore, a line which subsists to this day after twelve centuries. This was also like what happened in France where Charles Martel became the progenitor, through his grand-son Charles the Great, of a renowned and long continued line of kings.

v2.c29.7

Unlike Charles Martel, however, Bappā Rāwal lived long and marrying many wives had a numerous progeny. He is the progenitor of the Guhilot Rajputs who have several branches and whose number at this day cannot be less than one hundred thousand. Bappā was in fact so long lived that he eventually retired in favour of his son and became a Śaivite recluse and died at a very ripe old age. We do not believe, as the legend recorded by Tod relates, that he in old age retired and went to Persia, again married there and founded a second royal family. It is far more in consonance with his highly religious nature that he retired and became a devotee as stated in the Ekalinga inscription.*

v2.c29.8

It remains to fix the dates of Bappā's birth, his accession to the throne of Chitore and his abdication. The traditional date of his abdication is given as V. Samvat 820 or 763 A. D. This date does not seem to be incompatible with the date which is found in the inscription of Maun Mori at Chitore given by Tod in his history (Appendix Vol. II Tod's Rajastan by Crooke) viz., 770 V. S. or 713 A. D. Maun Mori is supposed to be the last king of the Mori line. The accession of Bappā to the throne of Chitore may be placed between 713 and 763 or somewhere about 730 A. D. It is given by Tod on the basis of Mewad tradition as 728 A.D. (see Tod by Crooke Vol. I p. 285). The Arabs conquered Sind in 712 A. D. and must have made incursions into kingdoms of inner India thereafter. The incursion on Maurya kingdom as stated above must have taken place sometime before 738 the date of the Navasāri inscription and we may safely place Bappā's accession in 740 A. D. and even earlier in 730 A. D. His rule, therefore, may be taken to have lasted 33 years not a long period however. It is difficult to say what his age was when he sat on the throne of Chitore. If he was comparatively young, we may take him about 30 years old and his birth may be assigned to 700 A. D. Now there is a strong traditional belief among the Guhilots of Mewad that Bappā was born in St. 191 a date which Tod says neither the bards nor the reignig prince of Udepur were willing to give up (see Tod by Crooke Vol. I p. 268). How to explain this figure was a riddle before Tod and he solved it by going to the Valabhī era and the sack of Valabhī by the barbarians. Now for both these Tod assigned dates which have been proved wrong from inscriptions. For the latter he assigns A. D. 524 but as a matter of fact we know that the last Śilāditya of Valabhī has left a grant dated 766 A. D. The explanation given by Tod, therefore, fails and we are driven to say that the Guhilot bards stick to a false and fanciful date for the birth of Bappā or we must offer some other explanation. We think we can explain this figure by looking upon it as given in the era of the founding of the Valabhī kingdom by Bhaṭārka, the date of which is 509 A. D. as given in our genealogy of the Valabhī kings (see Vol. I page 250). If we add 191 to this we get 700 A. D. It is not at all strange that the Idar branch of the Valabhī dynasty should have kept up the memory of the kingdom founded by Bhaṭārka as the branch was founded by a son of Guhasena whose date is 565 A. D. The Indian dynasty bards kept up, even keep up now, by calculation of their own, such eras or Samvats by adding the number of years for each reign and thus the memory of St. 191 for Bappā's birth from the foundation of Valabhī rule is not strange.

v2.c29.9

∗ The above account is detailed from the following two ślokas :— द्वारीतराशिवचनादूरमिन्दुमौलेरासाद्य स द्विजवरो नृपतिर्बभूव । पर्य्यहीननृपसुताः शतशः स्वशक्त्याजैपीच्च राजकमिलां सकलां भुजोज || दत्वा महीं मघगुणाय सूनवे न्वेन्दुमौलिं हृदि भावयन्नृपः । जगाम वाप्यः परमेश्वरं यतो महोदयं योगयुनामसंशयम् ||

v2.c29.10

Whether Bappā is, as sometimes represented, a nickname only and whether he is to be identified with Khumāna or some other Guhilot king ruling later on, we shall discuss fully in a note. Here it will suffice to state that though the word Bappā sometimes means a Bāvā or recluse, it originally means father (Marāthi Bāpa) and is found actually applied to the founder of a kingly family as shown by the epithet बप्पादानुध्यात applied to kings of Nepāl in their many inscriptions. But we do not believe that Bappā was an epithet so bestowed by later kings on the founder of the Guhilot family; we think it was his own proper name, for we find Bappā as a proper name even in these times and in earlier times also. Thus Bappabhaṭṭi is the name of a Jain Āchārya of the time and Bappārya of a Brahmin donee in an inscription of the time; and among Kshatriyas the name Śrivallabha Bappa is mentioned as that of the Dūtaka in the Bagumra grant of A. D. 655 (Ind. Ant. XVIII p. 269).

v2.c29.11

THE SUCCESSORS OF BAPPĀ,

v2.c29.12

The Guhilot line of Rajput kings of Chitore in Mewad founded by Bappā is certainly the most unique line in the history of the world. Founded by Bappā in 730 A. D. in Mewad it still subsists after the lapse of nearly twelve hundred years and in the same lands and the fortress of Chitore is still in its possession though the capital is not now Chitore but Udepur. But what is more wonderful is that the kings of this line, however diverse their fortune, were, each and all, chivalrous and virtuous, lovers of independence and supporters of their ancestral faith. Indeed we may say that the sublime character of the hero-god Rāma as a man and a king whom they look upon as their progenitor still exercises its influence over the kings of this line and equally reigns the influence of the life of the actual founder Bappā who was a highly religious and independence-loving, valorous king. The praise bestowed* upon him by the Chitoregad and Achaleśvara inscriptions is not untrue and the Guhilot line of kings equally deserves the praise bestowed upon it†.

v2.c29.13

∗ Bappā was given a golden valaya for his foot, indicative of sovereignty, by the sage Hārīta for his great devotion to the Ekalinga Śiva idol (संप्रासाद्भुतमेकालिंंगचरणांभोगप्रसादात्फलं यस्मै दिव्यसुवर्णपाद-कटकां हारीतराशिर्ददौ । वप्पाख्यः स पुरा पुराणपुरुषप्रारंभनिर्वाहनाद्युत्यो-त्साहगुणो बभूव जगति श्रीमेदपाटाधिपः ॥ (B. I. P. 75) See also हारीताकिल वप्पकोऽप्रिवलयव्याजेन लेभे महः क्षात्रं धातुनिभाद्वितीय सुनये ब्राह्मं स्वसेवा-च्छलात् ॥ (B. I. 85). This does not necessarily show that Bappā was a Brahmin and Hārīta was a Kshatriya. The poet simply means that Bappā's service of the sage was a Brahmin mahas (greatness) and it was repaid by the Kshatriya mahas viz: the golden anklet of a king.

v2.c29.14

† See यद्वंशो गुहिलस्य राजभगवन्नारायणः कीर्त्यते तत्सत्यं, कथमन्थथा नृपतयस्तं संश्रयन्तेतराम् । मुक्तेः कल्पितवेतसः करतलव्यासक्तदण्डोज्ज्वलाः प्राणत्राणाधियः श्रियः समुद्यैर्न्यस्तापहस्ताः सदा ॥ and एतेऽप्यापि महीभुजः क्षितितले तद्वंशसंभूतयः शोभन्ते सुतरामुपात्तवपुषः क्षात्रा हि धर्मा इव ॥ B. I. Page 85.

v2.c29.15

The several inscriptions yet known relating to this line, however, are very difficult to reconcile one with another, regarding the names of the successors of Bappā step by step and the matter is further complicated by the finding of a fresh copy of the Ātapurā inscription which was before Tod also. In this new copy certain names appear which are not in Tod’s copy and the number of kings down to Samarasinha the reputed contemporary of Prithvīrāja with whom our history will end about the beginning of the 13th century A. D. is about 30 which gives approximately ((1200-740)/30 = 460/30) 15 years per reign, not an improbable figure. If we, however, take the number of kings as given by the new copy of the Ātapurā inscription we have from Bappā (or Guhila) to Śaktikumāra whose inscription of V. S. 1034 or A. D. 977 has been found, 20 kings excluding Bappā and this gives ((977-763)/20 = 214/20) 11 years which is rather improbable. But looking to the fact that during the period with which our second volume is concerned, the Mewad kings were constantly fighting with the Mahomedans who harassed them from their base in Sind, we need not wonder at this shortness of the average reign. For example, we find four kings mentioned from 1008 to 1034 V. E. or a period of 26 years only viz., Allaṭa, Naravāhana, Śalivāhana and Śaktikumāra. Or it may be possible that this Ātapurā inscription brings together contemporaneous kings of different branches of the Guhila tree, as was done by Tod himself, for we are already told that this family had many branches (vide the Chitoregad inscription*). We are, therefore, not yet certain about the successors of Bappā during the second sub-period of Mediæval Hindu Indian history, (The two kings Śila and Aparājita whose inscriptions of the 7th century A. D. have been found must be considered to be Bappā’s ancestors and if these names recur in the Ātapurā new copy they are descendants having the same names). But we will give here the most important of these kings, mainly following the Chitoregad and Achaleśvara inscriptions for details.

v2.c29.16

∗ शास्त्रोपशाखाकुलितः सुपर्वा गुणोचितः पत्रविभूषितांगः । कृतास्पदो मूर्द्धनि भूधराणां जयत्युदारो गुहिलस्य वंशः ॥ (B. 1. P. 85.)

v2.c29.17

the Roman world, and the most important events of the reign of Antoninus Pius, are related by his biographer, and the reader will not be sorry to find them here in a more concise form. The reign of Antoninus Pius is marked by the rare advantage of furnishing very few materials for history; which is only another mode of saying that its happiness was complete. During the twenty-three years of his administration, the Roman empire was governed by the same invariable maxims of justice and peace. The natives of a vast extent of country were protected by the same laws, and enjoyed the same privileges. The frontiers were defended by the same legions, and the same spirit of moderation and equity prevailed in the councils of the emperor. The death of Antoninus was lamented as a public calamity; and the memory of his virtues was preserved by the gratitude of his subjects, and the imitation of his successor.

v2.c29.18

The reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, which followed, was a period of great activity and of great events. The empire was attacked on all sides by the barbarians, and the emperor was obliged to spend the greater part of his life in the camp. He was a man of a mild and philosophical temper, and he would have preferred the quiet of the study to the tumult of the field. But he was a prince of a high sense of duty, and he did not shrink from the task which was imposed upon him. He defended the frontiers with vigour, and he defeated the enemies of Rome in many a hard-fought battle. His death was a loss to the empire, and it was felt by all classes of his subjects. He was the last of the good emperors, and with him the golden age of the Roman empire may be said to have terminated.

v2.c29.19

The character of the Roman government, under the Antonines, was that of a mild and paternal despotism. The emperor was the source of all power, and his will was the law of the land. But he was restrained by the influence of the senate, and by the force of public opinion. The senate was still a body of great dignity and importance, and its members were the principal officers of the state. The emperor was careful to consult them on all matters of importance, and he was always ready to listen to their advice. The public opinion was also a powerful check upon the actions of the emperor. The people of Rome were still a proud and independent race, and they were not afraid to express their dissatisfaction with the measures of the government. The emperor was aware of this, and he was always careful to avoid any act that would be likely to give offence to the people.

v2.c29.20

The administration of justice was one of the most important duties of the emperor. He was the supreme judge of the empire, and he was always ready to hear the complaints of his subjects. He was assisted by a council of jurists, who were the most learned men of the age. The laws were administered with impartiality, and the rights of the citizens were protected. The taxes were moderate, and they were collected with fairness. The public works were carried on with vigour, and the cities of the empire were adorned with magnificent buildings. The trade and commerce of the empire were encouraged, and the people were prosperous and happy. The Roman empire, under the Antonines, was a model of good government, and it was the envy of the world.

v2.c29.21

would cover three reigns but in this line of short reigns we might assign five kings between Bappā and Khommāṇa. As some kings are not mentioned in these inscriptions between Bappā and Mahāyaka who are mentioned in the Ātapurā inscription (Ind. Ant. XXXIX p. 191) it seems probable that Khommāṇa who fought valiantly with the aid of other Rajputs with the Arabs was the son and successor of Kālabhoja.

v2.c29.22

The poem Khommāṇa Rāsā has not been available to us and it is very difficult to say how far it is historically valuable. The bringing together of various Rajput clans is a favourite artifice with poets introduced to display knowledge of Rajput clans just as Homer brings all the then known Greek tribes together in some places in his Iliad. But it may be accepted that many Rajput clans did actually come to the help of Chitore in this their first great struggle with Mahomedans just as Rajputs came together to oppose Mahmud of Ghazni and they came to the assistance of Prithvirāja in his fight with Shahbudin. It is, however, unnecessary to discuss here which Rajput tribes came to the assistance of Khommāṇa and we will leave the details to Tod's work (Vol. II) as these details are probably not historical but imaginary.

v2.c29.23

The son and successor of Khommāṇa (the third) who was also a great warrior is in these two inscriptions said to be Allaṭa. The mother of this king was Mahālakshmī born of a Rāshṭrakūṭa family*. We have a separate inscription of Naravāhana, son and successor of Allaṭa, in which also Allaṭa is said to be a son of Mahālakshmī but this inscription does not give the name of his father who may be either Khommāṇa or Bhartripaṭṭa, son and successor of Khommāṇa, as stated in the Ātapurā inscription. The son and successor of Allaṭa was Naravāhana whose successor was Śaktikumāra (but the Ātapurā inscription puts one Śālivāhana between Naravāhana and Śaktikumāra). The Ātapurā inscription belongs to the time of Śaktikumāra and is dated Vikrama Samvat 1034 equivalent to 977 A.D. Śaktikumāra's successor was Śuchivarman. We have an inscription of Śuchivarman himself which is dated V. E. 1038. The Chitore inscription closes with the mention of king Naravāhana and the line is carried on upto Samarasinha of V. S. 1338, in the Achaleśvara inscription. We will speak of this latter portion of the line in our third volume and we close here our account of the Guhilot kings of Chitore with Śuchivarman who probably reigned about 1000 A. D. Who the king of Chitore was when Mahmūd of Ghazni invaded the Chitore territory we shall discuss in Book VI. We append a list of the Guhilot kings from Bappā to Śatikumāra and give for comparison the list given in the Mewad Gazetteer by Erskine with a few remarks of our own explaining our view.

v2.c29.24

∗ The Nilgunda inscription of Amoghavarsha 1. dated 866 A.D. states that Amoghavarsha conquered the Gurjaras, of course, of Kanouj and those who dwell in the hill fort of Chitrakūṭa. This shows that Chitore was a substantial kingdom and had come into conflict with the Rāstrakūṭas of the Deccan.

Genealogy of Guhilot Kings.

v2.c29.s1.1

| | Ātapura Ins. St. 1034 | Achalgadh Ins. St. 1342 | Bānapur Ins, St, 1496 | Mewad Gaz. |
| | Guhāditya or Bappā retired in V.S. 820. | Bappā | .. A.D. 763 |
| 1 | Guhila | .. Guhila | .. Guhila | |
| 2 | Bhoja | .. Bhoja | .. Bhoja. | |
| 3 | Mahendra | .. — | .. — | |
| 4 | Nāga | .. — | .. — | |
| *5 | Śila | .. Śila | .. Śila | |
| *6 | Aparājita | .. — | .. — | |
| 7 | Mahendra II | .. — | .. — | |
| †8 | Kālabhoja | .. Kālabhoja | .. Kālabhoja | |
| †9 | Khommāna | .. — | .. — | .. 836 |
| 10 | Mattata | .. — | .. — | |
| 11 | Bhatripatta | .. — | .. — | |
| 12 | Sinha | .. Sinha | .. Sinha | |
| 13 | Khommāna II | .. — | .. — | |
| 14 | Mahāyaka | .. Mahāyaka | .. Mahāyaka | |
| 15 | Khommāna III.. | Khommāna | .. Khommāna | .. 936 |
| 16 | Bhatripatta II .. married Mahālakshmi of the Rāstrakūtas. | .. | .. | |
| 17 | Allata | .. Allata | .. Allata | |
| | Ins. V. E. 1008—11 | .. | .. | .. 951 |

v2.c29.s1.2

18 Naravāhana .. Naravāhana .. Naravāhana V. E, 1028 .. .. .. 971 19 Śālivāhana .. — .. .. 20 Śakti-Kumāra .. Śakti-Kumāra .. Śakti-Kumāra V. 1034 .. .. .. 977 21 Śuchivarman-V. S, 1038 .. .. 1,000

v2.c29.s1.3

* Inscriptions dated V. E. 703 and 718 have been found of kings of these names but they are not these kings according to our view.

v2.c29.s1.4

† It is sought to identify either of these two kings with Bappā by Dr. Bhandarkar and others, because if Guhadatta is identified with Bappā we have 20 kings from 820 V. E. to 1034 which gives 10 years for each reign. Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar looks upon the 9th Khommāna as the Bappā of the Guhilot tradition which will give 214 (1034-820) years for 11 kings or an average of 20 per king. But it seems to us that for securing the usual average of 20 years per king it is not advisable to upset the whole tradition. If Khommāna is taken to be Bappā the whole line of successors is upset; you do not get Guhila, Bhoja, Śila and Kālābhoja as descendants of Bappā which they were believed to be at the time of the Achalagadh ins. You can not set at naught the tradition current in the thirteenth and even in the eleventh century (see Naravāhana Ins.), for merely securing the usual average. It may be that this line of kings had a specially short average or it may be that the Ātapurā ins. repeats some kings wrongly or brings together kings of different branches who were contemporaries ? for instance Śālivahana is unnecessary very probably being king not in Chitore but in Ātapurā itself where a younger branch may have continued ruling. If the Achalagadh inscription is alone relied upon, we get 11 kings only after Bappā to Śaktikumāra i. e. from 820 to 1034 V. E. In any case it is practically impossible to equate Bappā with Khommāna as the successon would be entirely different and we have no hesitation in identifying him with Guhadatta of the Ātapurā inscription.

v2.c29.s1.5

Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar in his paper on Guhilots (Bengal R. A. S. New Series Vol. V, 1909 pp. 176-187) has attempted to show that the Mewad Guhilot family of Rajputs was founded by one Guhadatta who was a Nāgar Brahmin from Vadnagar and who consequently was a foreigner and a Mer, the Nāgars and the Maitrakas of Valabhī being in fact foreigners who came to India along with the Huns in the sixth century A. D. like the Gurjaras. He has thus killed two birds (nay three) with one throw and degraded the Guhilots of Mewad who are considered to be the best Kshatriyas by the whole of India, from their high Aryan ancestry, along with the kings of Valabhī from whom they claim their descent and the Nāgar Brahmins one of the chief Brahmin sub-castes, into Mers ! ! ! We propose to examine this theory of Dr. Bhandarkar in this note and to see how far it is sound and believable.

v2.c29.s1.6

We may at once say that the second part of this theory is absurd and based on the usual fallacies and prejudices. In beginning this part of his theory, Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar himself admits that he is not quite on *terra firma*. He argues that the names of certain Nāgar Brahmin donees in the Alīna inscription end in Mitra. On this he cannot resist the temptation to hold that Mitra was the name by which Nāgar Brahmins were distinguished from other sub-caste Brahmins. Now the Valabhī kings in their inscriptions are called Maitrakas. " We thus see that the Nāgar Brahmins and the Valabhī kings belonged to the same ethnic stock viz., " Maitra " (P. 184.) ! As Mitra and Mihira are names of the same sun, " there seems reason to identify the Maitrakas with Mihiras the well-known tribe of Mehers or Mers." And further this rise of the Maitraka (Valabhī) power took place about 500 A. D., the period when the Huns came to and conquered India. " This seems to show that the Maitrakas were like Gujars a tribe allied with Hūṇas and entered India with them " !! And finally " Now we see that Nāgar Brahmins were Maitrakas and the Maitrakas were like Gujars a foreign race. When a stranger tribe settled in India the priests of the foreign tribe became Brahmins and the warriors became Kshatriyas." Thus the Nāgar Brahmins who were Mitras and consequently Mers are foreigners and the Guhilots who are descended from Nāgar Brahmins are also Mers and foreigners by race. Even if they were descended from the Maitraka kings of Valabhī, they belonged, according to Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar, to the same ethnic stock *viz.*, Mers and are allied to Gujars and Huns *i. e.*, are foreigners and Mers by race ! !

v2.c29.s1.7

It is plain that the argument as stated above is so flimsy and illogical that it is needless to enter into any refutation of it. The reader will hold with us that even if the Guhilots were proved to be descended from a Nāgar Brahmin they cannot be treated as non-Aryan for nobody will agree with Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar in holding that Mitra is another name of Mihara and, therefore, of Mer the well-known outcast people of Kathiawar. It is, however, the first part of his theory that requires a searching examination as it goes directly against the ancient traditions of the Mewad Rajput family, viz. that it is descended from the Maitraka Valabhī kingly family founded by Bhatārka who traces his descent through Kanakasena to Rāma, the solar-race hero of Indian mythology.

v2.c29.s1.8

It must be admitted at the outset that this part of Dr. Bhandarkar’s theory is based on many inscriptions. But, as we have said already, because a statement is recorded on stone or copper that does not make it invulnerable. Statements in inscriptions must be submitted to the same tests as any other statements e. g. of witnesses. Now we have first to point out that there is no contemporary evidence to show that Bappā Rāwal was a Nāgar Brahmin. He lived, as we have seen, from 700 A.D. to 763 A.D. There is no record of this period which throws any light upon the question who Bappā was and how he rose to power. It is well-known that stories gather round the life of great heroes and founders of ancient families. We have to test these stories and traditions and reject such as are obviously absurd or are likely to have naturally subsequently arisen. Now we have, on this ground, rejected the tradition current in Mewad that Bappā or one of his ancestors was born of a pregnant queen in a jungle where she had taken refuge after the destruction of her husband's clan and kingdom. This story is told in India of many founders of royal families; it is told of Vanarāja; it is told of the founder of the Chālukya family of the Deccan and recorded even in an inscription of the Eastern Chālukyas (see Ep. Ind. VI, p. 367). Moreover, from unquestioned evidence the last king of Valabhī was alive and on the throne of Valabhī in 766 A. D. i. e. three years even after Bappā Rāwal had finished his career. We have, therefore, to see first whether such traditions are likely to arise and whether they are supported by contemporaneous evidence or not.

v2.c29.s1.9

Now the inscriptions found which first state distinctly that Bappā Rāwal was a Brahmin are the Chitoregad and Achaleśvara inscriptions both written by the same man. These inscriptions are dated V. E. 1331 and 1342 equivalent to A. D. 1274 and 1285 i. e., more than 500 years after Bappā lived. The first states "May the city with name beginning with Ānanda prosper from which a Vipra named Bappā etc." Here there is no doubt whatever that Bappā is said to be a Vipra or Brahmin from Ānandapura. All later inscriptions or records are mere echoes of this statement and naturally embody this tradition. The Ekalinga Māhātmya and the Ekalinga inscription thus follow and embody this belief. The origin of all these is, as stated expressly in यदुक्तं पुरातनैः कविभिः of the Ekalinga Māhātmya, the verse in the beginning of the Ātapurā inscription a copy of which was even before Tod the historian of the Rajputs and which has been edited again from a fresh and probably original copy obtained by Dr. Bhandarkar. That verse is as follows. आनन्दपुरविनिर्गत विप्रकुलानन्दनो महीदेवः। जयति श्री गुहदत्तः प्रभवः श्री गुहिलवंशस्य॥. It is this verse which we have to examine closely and see what it really means though even this Ātapurā inscription is 300 years later than Bappā.

v2.c29.s1.10

Now it seems that the later writers misconstrued this verse and gave rise to a wrong tradition much in the same way as the misinterpretation of Pṛthvīrāja Rāsū verses gave rise to the spurious tradition of Agnikulas now exploded from inscriptions themselves. For there is firstly nothing to show that Ānandapura in this verse is the Ānandapura or Vadnagar of the Nāgar Brahmins, as it is admitted by Dr. Bhandarkar himself that Ānandapura is the name of many towns including Ātapurā itself where this Rajput family first lived and ruled. And there is further nothing whatever to prove that the supposed Brahmin founder was a Nāgar Brahmin. The writer of the two long poetical praśastis of Achaleśvara and Chitore of V. E. 1342 and 1331 was a Nāgar Brahmin himself as he distinctly states at the end of his Achaleśvara record that the Praśasti at Chitrakūta was composed by a Brahmin belonging to the Nāgar caste (Nāgarjñātibhājā). Had the supposed founder of the Mewad royal family been a Nāgar Brahmin, the Nāgar Brahmin writer of the Praśastis would probably not have missed the opportunity to state that the founder too was a Nāgar Brahmin. The Ekalinga Māhātmya has no historical value and may be left out of consideration entirely, especially as it is of a very recent date.

v2.c29.s1.11

But the chief point in connection with the verse in the beginning of the Ātapurā inscription is whether the word Mahīdeva is to be interpreted as Brahmin or king, for the word is used in both meanings. It is possible that it means here a king as pointed out by Mohanlal Pandia in his answer to Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar; for विप्रकुलानन्दनो विप्रः seems to be incongruous and it further appears that this verse equates the name Guhadatta with Bappā. Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar does not do this and thinks that Bappā is the nickname of some later king either Mahendrajit or Kālabhoja* (See also Mewad Gazetteer where Erskine adopts this view of Dr. Bhandarkar). Dr. Bhandarkar further says that Guhila is the same as Guhadatta which is not correct. In most inscriptions Guhila is the name of Bappā's son who succeeded him. Here it is necessary to point out that Guhadatta and Bappā must be the same. Dr. Bhandarkar observes "It is true that some records speak of Bappā or Bappaka as the progenitor of the family but they are comparatively much later inscriptions.” This is not correct. Both the Achaleśvara and Chitoregad inscriptions represent Bappā as the founder of the Mewad family. The Ātapurā inscription is dated V. E. 1034 or A. D. 979 and mentions no doubt Guhadatta but there is an earlier inscription of Naravāhana which is dated V. E. 1028 or A. D. 971 in which Bappā distinctly appears to be the founder. Though the inscription is broken and illegible here and there, his name appears in the beginning and the word Guhilagotranarendrachandra would point to him as the founder and no other name is given before his (See Bhavn. Ins. page 59); and since Bappaka king is to be indentified with Guhadatta we have to interpret Mahīdeva as meaning a king and not a Brahmin.

v2.c29.s1.12

∗ This seems doubly absurd if we are to suppose according to the Achaleśvara inscription that Bappā was a Brahmin. Was Kālabhoja a Nāgar Brahmin?

v2.c29.s1.13

The name Bappā as the founder’s name given in the Naravāhana inscription is, therefore, as old as A.D.971, it is in fact the oldest inscription we have and we may be tolerably certain that he was not then looked upon as a Brahmin. But this word Mahīdeva appears to have been misinterpreted into meaning a Brahmin in later times and later inscriptions such as those of Chitoregad and Achaleśvara of A.D. 1274 carried on the misconception later still. How did this misconception based upon a misinterpretation of the word Mahīdeva arise we may try to surmise from the contemporary records of other kingly families.

v2.c29.s1.14.1

The stories about the origin of founders of families usually arise from misconceptions and have always, it must be noted here, to be disregarded. When Chālukya inscriptions say that the founder of the family was born from the chuluka or handful of Bhāradvāja Droṇa, there is nothing more in the story than a poetic interpretation of the name Chālukya. Similarly, when Pratihāra is said to be a name given to the family from Lakshmaṇa who was always the door-keeper or Pratihāra of Rāma, we may treat this also to be a fictitious origin assigned to it which may safely be disregarded. Even Vedic Rishis delighted in exploiting names in this fanciful way and assigned fanciful origins to founders of family. Dr. Bhandarkar makes capital out of the story in the Vedas that Vasiṣṭha was born of the Apsaras Urvaśī whom, again, later Purāṇas represented as a gaṇikā or prostitute; but we may at once set aside such stories as poetical fancies carrying no historical importance. Vasiṣṭha and Agastya are said in the Vedas to be the sons of the twin-god Mitrā-Varuṇa who put in a kumbha or pot, his seed emitted at the sight of Uravaśī and hence Agastya is called Kumbhayoni. Bṛigu is similarly said in the Vedas to be the son of Varuṇa. Now all such legends are simply poetical and have to be omitted out of consideration. Such legends obtained even among the Greeks and other Aryan branches also, assigning strange origins to heroes and the founders of families.

v2.c29.s1.14.2

Similar disregard has to be paid to unbelievable stories which gain currency about the origin and even the exploits of founders of families who lived in historical times. It is, however, possible to find the cause of such misconceptions and false ideas and we may suggest the following reason why Bappā was looked upon as a Brahmin. As we have elsewhere shown at length, the Rajput families kept up the memory of their gotras religiously and the Udepur family gotra was Baijavāpa. It was a puzzle in *medieval times* to explain how Kshatriyas could have the same gotras as Brahmins and the puzzle continues down to this day. Though we have tried to solve the question in our note on Gotras some doubt may still be entertained by many on the subject. The latest theory of the 13th century A. D. noted by Vijñāneśvara was that these gotras were borrowed by Kshatriyas from their purohitas which as we have shown is untrue and incorrect. It appears that in the earlier centuries these gotras were explained on the theory that the Rishi of the gotra was the progenitor of the family. The Paramāra inscriptions thus say that their gotra was Vasishṭha because Vasishṭha created the first Paramāra warrior from his fire. The Chedi inscription which we have already noticed similarly professes to believe that the first warrior of the Chālukya family was sprung from the chuluka not of Brahmā but of Bhāradvāja and hence it was that the Chālukyas professed to be of the Bhāradvāja gotra.

v2.c29.s1.14.3

The case of the Chāhamāna is distinctly in point. While certain inscriptions give an independent origin, the Bijolia inscription says that there was a Brahmin in Ahichchhatra of the Vatsa gotra from whom was born the Chāhamāna king Sāmanta. Now the Chāhamānas from ancient times have professed this gotra and this legend tries to explain the gotra by supposing that the progenitor of the Chāhamānas was a Brahmin of the Vatsa gotra. But if the Chāhamānas were represented as Solar Kshatriyas in other inscriptions how can they be born of a Brahmin of the Vatsa gotra living in Ahichchhatra? This idea changed into another idea and another origin of the Vatsa gotra of the Chāhamānas is given in the Sunda hill inscription of Chāchagadeva of Samvat 1319 and therefore of the same period as the Chitoregai and Achaleśvara inscriptions. It says that the first Chāhamāna hero was born from the eyes of Vatsa Rishi himself when he threw out tears of joy. Now all these attempts are fanciful attempts to explain the gotras of Rajput families which were being made from about the tenth century and later. And it is no wonder if like the ancestor king Sāmanta of the Chāhamāna Rajputs who was said to be born of a Vatsa gotra Brahmin of Ahichchhatra, the chief ancient town of the Chāhamānas, so Bappā Rāwal was believed in the thirteenth century A. D. to be born of a Brahmin of the Baijavpā gotra of Anandpura, the chief town of the Guhilots.

v2.c29.s1.14.4

The word Mahideva must have originally meant king but it was interpreted in later times under wrong gotra theories to mean a Brahmin. As said above we have generally to discard all such theories about the founders of families whether of Rajputs or Brahmins and take as little as possible from legends which are inconsistent with probabilities.

v2.c29.s1.15

But we go a step still further. Even if we grant that Bappā or Guhadatta was a Brahmin and a Nāgar Brahmin from Ānandpura alias Vadnagar, how does that make the whole Guhilot family of Rajputs foreigners—irrespective of the fact we have already noticed that Nāgar Brahmins could not be treated as foreigners. We have already shown in Vol. I and in this volume also that at that period of Hindu history, Brahmins often married Kshatriya wives especially kings' daughters and the progeny of such unions was treated as Kshatriya and probably of the sept to which the mother belonged. The theory of putrikāputra has always been accepted in Hindu Law and moreover the Guhilot family, king by king, as mentioned in later inscriptions has always married into Kshatriya families. How can then the fact of one Brahmin coming in affect the race of the whole family? We believe that Bappā's being a Brahmin is a misconception of later inscriptions but we argue that even if he were a Brahmin, his marrying a Kshatriya princess is not at all inconsistent with the customs of the period. His wife must have belonged to the Guhila family of Idar or of Nāgadā and their son being a putrikāputra or daughter's son taken into the grandfather's family was a Guhila himself. He might have been named Guhila even for this reason just as the son of Durlabha-vardhana king of Kashmir who married the sole daughter of the preceding Kashmir king of the Gonandiya dynasty was called Pratāpāditya (See Vol. I, p.206). The inscription at Achaleśvara distinctly says that Bappā's son was Guhila and the whole family afterwards was called Guhilot after him. It seems then that even if we accept the idea that Bappā was a Brahmin, there is nothing strange if he married the daughter of a Guhila Kshatriya king of Nāgadā and became famous as many Brhmins did in his time e. g. Chacha of Sind or Lalliya of Kabul whose history we have already given in Vol. I and the descendants of these kings were Rajputs for all practical purposes for we know they gave daughters to and married daughters from Rajput families. But here in the Guhilot family all subsequent kings were treated as Kshatriyas and married Kshatriya ladies and we have a detailed list of them all. How can, even if Bappā were conceded to be a Brahmin, the whole line be treated as foreign by race?

v2.c29.s1.16

In closing this subject then we will give our view of the matter in plain and simple terms. . We do not believe that Bappā was a Brahmin; he belonged to the Guhila Vamśa as stated in the Naravāhana inscription of St. 1028 or 971 A.D. which is even earlier than that of Ātapurā which contains the disputed verse. The lines of the Naravāhana inscription are important. They declare that Bappā was a king (क्षितिपतिः) who was moon to the Guhila Vamśa*. This shows that there was a line of Guhila princes at Nāgadā which was most probably a branch of the Idar family founded by a Gūhāditya belonging to the Valabhī line of kings and hence called Guhila. To this line belonged Aparājita and Śila whose inscriptions belonging to the seventh century A.D. have been found. They were kings before Bappaka who was like the moon to the stars of that family. Bappā was a great devotee of Śiva and a disciple of Hārīta a great saint and worshipper of Ekalinga and was himself a highly religious man. By his valour and fortune Bappā became eventually king of Chitore and having married many wives like all great Indian kings was the father of a numerous progeny in so much so that numerous clans numbering together several thousand descendants at this day claim descent from him. In his old age he retired to a forest and became a Śaiva Sanyāsī* (he did not go to Persia to marry Mahomedan women). In order to distinguish his descendants from the previous Guhilas, the latter were called, in the usual Rajput manner, Guhilaputras or Guhilots. It is extremely probable that Bappā was his own name as we find in an inscription a king with this name of a very early date (Ep. Ind. Vol. IX:—Bappabhattāraka pāda Bhattarasa). In short our view is that the word Mahīdeva in the Ātapurā inscription means a king and not a Brahmin.

v2.c29.s1.17

∗ यस्मिन्प्रभुहिलगोत्रनरेन्द्रचंद्रः श्रीवप्पकः क्षितिपतिः क्षितिपाठरत्नम् ॥

v2.c29.s1.18

But even if it does mean a Brahmin we add that there is nothing to show in any inscription that he was a Nāgar Brahmin. Ānandapura is the name of many towns besides Vadnagar. Nay it seems certain from the below quoted ślokas that the Chitoregad inscription looks upon Nāgāda as Ānandapura.† And is it to be granted that a Brahmin coming from Vadnagar must necessarily be a Nāgar Brahmin? And lastly, even if it be granted that he was a Nāgar Brahmin there is no truth whatever in the theory that Nāgar Brahmins are Mers and foreigners. It is not necessary to write a note on this subject refuting the flimsy arguments of Dr. Bhandarkar and show that Nāgars are not Mers.

v2.c29.s1.19

∗ The Ekalinga inscription has the following verse about Bappā on retirement :—दत्वा महीमच्छगुणाय सूनवे नवेन्दुमौलिं हृदि भावयन्नृपः । जगाम वप्पः परमेश्वरं महो महोदयं योगयुजामसंशयम् ॥

v2.c29.s1.20

† अस्मिन्नागहृदाह्वयं पुरमिलाखण्डावनीभूषणम् । जीयादानन्दपूर्वं तदिह पुरमिलाखण्डसौन्दर्यशोभि ।

v2.c29.s1.21

THE CHĀHAMĀNAS OF SAMBHAR.

v2.c29.s1.22

The next Rajput clan that came to the forefront about the same time as the Guhilots were the Chāhamānas or Chauhāns of Sambhar. They are rightly described by Tod as "the most valiant of the Rajput races" not excluding even the Guhilots of Mewad and the Rathors of Marwad; for Tod adds that though these two "would be ready to contest the point, impartial decision with a knowledge of their respective merits must assign to the Chauhāns the van in the long career of arms". This position they have well maintained through the long period of twelve hundred years. Though the Chauhāns no longer possess their original seat of power like the Guhilots, they have the three important kingdoms of Bundi, Kotā and Sirohi still, in Rajputāna and the chiefs of these have always been known as the most valorous princes through both the Hindu and the Mahomedan periods of Indian History. Nay more, under Prithvīrāja Chauhān and his grand-father Viśaladeva also, they once enjoyed the imperial power in India and though Prithvīrāja was the *last* Hindu emperor of India, this unfortunate country being permanently enslaved after him, he has, unlike many last emperors of ancient and modern times shed such glory over the Rajput name by his chivalry and heroism that the Rajputs still love to believe that some one of their ancestors was with Prithvīrāja in his last memorable struggle with Shabuddin Ghori on the plain of Panipat. Indeed the Chauhāns for these reasons would have been entitled to be considered the first among the 36 royal clans, had it not been for the fact that in later history they accepted a position of subordination to the Mahomedan emperors of Dehli and some Chauhān sub-clans even embraced the Mahomedan faith to save their lands and their chiefships. It is for this reason that the Chauhāns stand second to the Guhilots whom they resembled, as we shall presently see, in many most important virtues.

v2.c29.s1.23

The history of the Chauhāns, however, differs from that of the Guhilots in the fact that we have very little information about the founder of the greatness of this most valiant Rajput clan. We have already discarded the Agnikula myth originated by Chand Bardai, the bard of Pṛithvīrāja. The first hero named Chāhamāna (or sometimes Anahila in later records) may be regarded as fabulous as also the date assigned to him by Surajmal Bhat, author of Vamśa-Bhāskara and bard of the Bundi kings. Again the 136 kings mentioned by him as Chāhamāna’s successors down to Pṛithvīrāja we are also compelled to treat as unhistorical. Even the kings mentioned in the Pṛithvīrāja Rāsā, 36 in number, as successors of Chāhamāna upto Vīśaladeva are unhistorical (for they are not borne out by inscriptions found relating to this family). It seems indeed strange that Chand Bardai a contemporary of Pṛithvīrāja of 1167 A. D. should not have been able to give a correct or even reliable genealogy of the family before Vīśaladeva who belonged to the tenth century A. D. For the period, therefore, of which we are treating in this volume (800 to 1000 A.D.), we have very meagre information indeed and we have to rely for meagre details chiefly on the Harsha stone inscription (Ep. Ind. Vol. II p. 119) in which two dates are given V.E.1013 and 1030 or 955 and 972 A.D., this being the oldest inscription available for this line of kings. This inscription is supported to a great extent by the Bijolia inscription which is about 200 years later being dated St. 1226 or 1169 A.D. (A. S. J. Bengal LV. p. 41). Copies of both these inscriptions are given in the appendix for the curious reader. Many other inscriptions belonging to this line have been found but they do not give any information before the above mentioned date viz., 972 A.D. and some of them confine themselves to one king only. There are thus three inscriptions of the Chāhamānas of Nadul V. E. 218 (Ep. Ind. IX. p. 68) and Sunda hill inscription of Chāchiga Deva St. 1319 (Ditto) published by Kielhorn and several inscriptions of the same line (Ep. Ind. XI p. 169) published by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar and the inscription of Chāhad Deva of Ranathambhor (Ep. Ind. XII. p. 224).

First 49 of 1,132 passages. Read on

Linked texts (16)