Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c29.s1: Genealogy of Guhilot Kings.

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v2.c29.s1

Language
English

Contents

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).

v2.c29.s1.24

According to the bards of the Chāhamānas, the original seat of power of the family was Māhishmatī on the Nerbudda and they enjoyed, it is believed, sovereignty of the whole of India many a time. We may treat this as unhistorical though we actually find the Chauhāns spread over almost the whole of India from the Panjab in the north to Mahārāshtra in the south. Their first historical seat of power was unquestionably Sambhar or the Śākambhari land which was a kingdom to the north of Mewad and which included Ajmer also. This country contained or was reputed to contain 1¼ lakhs of villages and hence was called Sapādalaksha country. (We have already quoted the list of Indian kingdoms with their reputed number of villages given in the Skanda Purāna Kumāri Khanda Chap. 39 (See note p. 40). Dr. Bhandarkar mistaking this Sapādalaksha country for the Siwalik hills country wrongly assigns that place as the original home of the Chāhamānas. The mistake has already been pointed out by Mr. Harbilas Sarda of Ajmer who also pointed out that Ahichchhatra which the Bijolia inscription mentions as the original city of the Chāhamānas was not situated in the Siwalik hills as was propounded by Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar but was Nagaur in Rajputana. On this point we are not quite sure and Ahichchhatra may have been the famous Ahichchhatra of the Pānchāla country mentioned in the Mahābhārata. But this question we have already alluded to in detail elsewhere and we may confine ourselves here to the remark that when the Chāhamānas are called Sapādalakshīya kings they are undoubtedly referred to as the kings of Sambhar or Sayambhar for we also find that they are usually called Sambharī Rais or kings of Sambhar in Prakrit poems and records.

v2.c29.s1.25

Who was the first king that established his power in this Sambhar country it is difficult to state. The Harsha stone inscription begins its description of the Chāhamāna family with Gūvaka and when it uses the word Ādya or first we are tolerably certain that the word being taken with king and not with Gūvaka shows that the inscription looked upon him as the first great king of the Chāhamānas of Sambhar. The Bijolia inscription, however, begins with a verse which is not quite clear in its meaning, saying "There was a Brahmin (we take the reading vipra as suggested by Dr. Bhandarkar instead of viprah of the edition in A. S. R. LV) of Śrīvatsa gotra formerly in Ahichchhatrapura. From him was (descended or born) king Sāmanta of many Sāmantas or Sardars. ( पूर्णतल्ल (Purṇatalla) remains unintelligible) ; or we may translate the verse as " There was a Brahman of Śrīvatsa gotra in Ahichchhatra formerly, named Sāmanta. From him was born Purṇatalla ( a proper name) who had many Sardars." Whatever the correct translation, it is clear that this verse gives the goby to the later myth started by Chand that the first founder of the Chāhamānas was created by Vaśishtha on Mount Abu from his sacrificial fire. That story as we have already shown emanates from a poet's imagination only. But even this story given in this verse of the Bijolia inscription viz., that a Brahmin of the Vatsa gotra was the founder of the family is imaginery and suggested by a desire to explain the Vatsa gotra of the Chāhamāna Rajputs. We may, however, believe that there was a powerful Chāhamāna chieftain by name Sāmantadeva supported by many Sardars who belonged to Ahichchhatrapura (either Rampur or Nagaur) and who came to the Sambhar country and founded a kingdom there, since the Pṛithvīrāja Rāsā also gives the first great king after Chāhamāna as Sāmantadeva.

v2.c29.s1.26

It may be said that the Harsha hill inscription does not begin with Sāmantadeva but with Gūvaka I and therefore does not also give the successors of Sāmanta upto Gūvaka I mentioned in the Bijolia inscription viz., 1 Jayarāja, 2 Vigraha, 3 Śrīchandra, 4 Gopendra and 5 Durlabha ; but it is satisfactory to note that the two inscriptions give almost the same line from Gūvaka I onwards upto Durlabharāja in whose reign the first inscription was recorded in V. E. 1030. There is a difference in one name only viz., that of (5) Vākpatirāja who must be equated with Bappayarāja—Vindhya Nripati, the name of Vākpati coming again in the latter (No. 10) being treated as Vākpati II. The two lists are as follows :--

v2.c29.s1.27

| HARSHA STONE INS. V. E. 1030. | BIJOLIA INSCRIPTION. |
| 1. Gūvaka I (circa 868 A. D. ) | 1. Gūvaka I. |
| 2. Chandra ( ,, 883 ,, ) | 2. Chandra (Śaśi) |
| 3. Gūvaka II ( ,, 898 ,, ) | 3. Gūvaka II. |
| 4. Chandana ( ,, 913 ,, ) | 4. Chandana. |
| 5. Vākpatirāja ( ,, 928 ,, ) | 5. Bappayarāja Vindhyanripati. |
| 6. Sinharāja ( ,, 943 ,, ) | 6. Sinha. |
| 7. Vigraharāja ( ,, 958 ,, ) | 7. Vigraharāja. |
| 8. Durlabharāja ( ,, 973 ,, ) | 8. Durlabha. |

v2.c29.s1.28

It is, however, strange that the list given in Rajputana Gazetteer Vol. III. B. page 65 omits the name of Gūvaka I after (8) Durlabha I though this name is given distinctly in the Bijolia inscription which this list follows and also in the Harsha stone inscription. The list requires to be corrected by the addition of this king who certainly was a conspicuous king of the line and who may even be looked upon as the founder of its greatness.

v2.c29.s1.29

We shall try to assign probable dates to and Sāmantadeva Gūvaka I. We cannot assign to this line 20 years per reign on an average. We know that Vigraharāja was alive in V. E. 1030 or A. D. 973. His grandfather was Vākpatirāja who had a younger son Lachhmana who founded the Nadul branch and for him we have a date V. E. 1039 or 982 A. D. in the inscription. His father Vākpati therefore cannot be put in 933 A.D. or 40 years earlier than Vigraha but we might put him 30 years earlier *i. e.*, in 943. We may take, therefore, 15 years as average for each reign in this line and we thus find that Gūvaka I must have reigned in 868 A.D. (973—105). And Sāmanta may be placed 195 years before 973 A.D. or in 778 A.D. The Rajputana Gazetteer assigns 750 A.D. as the date for Sāmanta which is not improbable, though it is not apparent on which definite data this date has been assigned to him. By probable calculation we can only arrive at rough dates only but the two dates given above are probable and also well fit in with the course of Indian history at this period. Sāmantadeva must have attained to fame by his conflicts with Mahomedans at about the same time as or a little later than Bappā Rāwal and established his power in Sāmbhar in the middle of the 8th century. One of his descendants viz., Gūvaka I became still more famous in the conglomeration of Indian kings and established his power firmly in that kingdom. The expression in the Harsha inscription " who obtained the fame of a warrior in the great kings' sabhā of Nāgāvaloka " has been interpreted to mean that Gūvaka I obtained fame as a Sāmanta or Sardar in the court of the Imperial Pratihāra king Nāgabhata. Kielhorn started this theory but subsequently changed his opinion (Ep. Ind. IX. p. 62) and yet again changed his view and reaffirmed his first opinion as appears from Stein Konow's paper on the Hansot inscription (Ep. Ind. XII. p. 67). It is, however, not probable that Gūvaka I was a dependent king though Sāmantadeva might have been. The Nripasabhā does not necessarily mean the Darbar of an emperor but may be translated as " an assemblage of kings called by Nāgāvaloka, who himself might be taken to be an imperial king. It is further not quite certain if the Hansot inscription is related to the Chāhamānas, for even there the word Chāhamāna is not clear and is only read by surmise. Its date again is St. 813 or A. D. 756 which does not fit in with Gūvaka I and we prefer to say that Gūvaka was an independent king who established his fame among kings by his exploits against the Mahomedans. He also in this respect resembled Bappā the founder of the Mewad Rajput family of Guhilots.

v2.c29.s1.30

Gūvaka I further resembles Bappā in being a devotee of Śiva. The Harsha stone record clearly shows that the Chāhamāna kings of Sambhar were devotees of the Śiva god named Harsha himself on the Harsha hill as the Guhilots were devotees of Ekalinga. It is even stated in the first verse of the Harsha inscription that Gūvaka I built the temple to Harsha Śiva on the hill and from the following verses it appears that many succeeding kings showered wealth upon the Harshadeva temple. It even appears that Harshadeva was the family god of this line and to his favour they believed that their greatness was due, just as the Guhilots believe that their greatness is due to the favour of Ekalinga whose ministers they merely profess to be. The line श्रीहर्षः कुलदेवोस्यास्तस्मादित्यः कुलक्रमः " Śriharsha is the family god of.

v2.c29.s1.31

this line of kings and from him is derived the splendid career of the family ” indicates this clearly and shows that at that time the worshippers of Śiva generally came forward to defend the religion and the independence of the Aryans of India. The Śiva cult of Lakulīśa was then in the forefront as appears from this inscription also, for the priests of Harshadeva whose devotees the Chāhamāna kings were belonged to the Lakulīśa sect like the priests of Ekalinga also from Hārīta onwards. About this sect and their importance in the development of religious thought in India we shall speak later on ; but of their influence on the political condition of the country by generating enthusiasm in orthodox Rajput families this inscription as well as the Guhilot Ekalinga inscription are sufficient proof.

v2.c29.s1.32

Gūvaka’s successor was Chandrarāja and his son was Gūvaka II. His son and successor Chandana is described as having defeated a king of Tomara race named Rudreṇa and thereby obtained fame. The Tomaras had, it appears, established by this time, their kingdom at Delhi and being their immediate northern neighbours the Chauhāns had constantly to fight with these Tomarras. Chandana’s son was Mahārāja Vākpati who seems to be the greatest of this first portion of the Chauhān line. He is said in the Harsha inscription to have defeated a king Tantrapāla of what country it is not stated (Ananta pārśva cannot be identified). The Bijolia inscription calls him Vindhya Nṛipati; perhaps his power extended so far. The Rajputana Gazetteer Vol. III. B, identifies him with Manikrai of the Prithvīrāja Rāsā on what ground is not stated; but this king’s younger son Lachhmana founded the Nadul line from which the kings of Sirohi derive their descent and his date may be taken to be 943 A. D. as shown above. Vākpatirāja’s elder son Sinharāja ascended the gaddi at Sāmbhar and he gave much wealth to the Harshadeva temple and covered the temple roof with golden plate. He is described as the equal of Harischandra (their ancient ancestor) in wealth, munificence and success in battle. He defeated the Tomara king with Lavaṇa, defeated other kings in all directions and imprisoned many. His son was Vigraharāja “the equal of his father in all respects.” In his time two villages were granted to Harshadeva temple and being the king during whose reign the Harsha inscription was recorded, he is naturally extolled the most. His brother and successor Durlabha is equally praised and we close our account of the Chāhamānas in this volume with Durlabharāja who reigned probably about the end of our period i.e., about 1000 A.D. Who the king was in Sāmbhar when Mahmud of Ghazni invaded India we will discuss in Book VI in the next vloume.

v2.c29.s1.33

From the Harsha stone inscription it appears that the Chāhamānas in the tenth century A.D. believed themselves to be of the solar race. The same fact appears from many other records which we have already noticed. Even so late as 1400 A.D. when the Hammīra Kāvya was composed the same belief prevailed. The story given in this poem about the origin of the Chāhamāna family and their next seat of power viz., Ajmer with its Pushkara lake is as follows: "Brahmā once formed a plan of performing a sacrifice and as he was moving in the sky to look for and settle upon a suitable spot, the lotus in his hand fell on the earth and the spot became known as lotus or Pushkara. Brahmā performed a sacrifice there and in order to protect the sacrifice the sun created a hero by name Chāhamāna." This legend explains at one throw why there is Brahmadeva's solitary temple in India at Pushkar, why the lake was called Pushkar and how the solar race Kshatriyas the Chauhāns came to rule over the land. But the story also proves that the different legends about the origins of the founders of families are all imaginary, each poet being at liberty to frame a story of his own. Any how it is certain that Chand's story of the fire origin of the Chāhamānas is imaginary; in fact, as we have shown he himself treated it as such and did not mean that these Kshatriyas were new creations. The Chāhamānas, therefore, must be treated as solar race Kshatriyas or of the first race of Aryan invaders of India, though their descendants in modern times believe themselves to be fire-born.

v2.c29.s1.34

THE IMPERIAL PRATĪHĀRAS OF KANAUJ.

v2.c29.s1.35

The third clan of Rajputs which came to the fore at about the same time and by about the same causes as the Chauhāns and the Guhilots was that of the Pratihāras and they soon became the most powerful clan in Northern India, having conquered the imperial city of Kanauj from Chakrāyudha the last Varmā emperor of Kanauj (See Vol. I. p. 341). Tod, the historian of the Rajputs, describes the Pratihāras as the least important of all the Rajput clans, probably owing to the fact that they were insignificant during the Mahomedan times and have left no kingdom of their own at the present day. But inscriptions discovered since the days of Tod and well interpreted by scholars especially Smith and Bhandarkar have established beyond doubt the fact that the imperial power of Northern India was wielded by the Pratihāras in the 9th and 10th centuries A. D. in succession to the Varmās described in our first volume. The history of the Imperial Pratihāras of Kanauj has been well told by Sir Vincent Smith from the inscriptions found up to date in J. R. A. S. 1909 and we rely chiefly on his paper therein in the following account of the kings of Kanauj. Of course Smith's view that the Pratihāras were Gujars and therefore foreigners has already been refuted on both grounds; for firstly the Pratihāras were not Gujars and secondly even if they were, they could not be foreigners as Gujars were not foreigners. With this one exception the account given by Sir Vincent Smith may safely be followed and we add certain further observations which appear on a perusal of the original inscriptions referred to by him.

v2.c29.s1.36

The history of the origin of the family and its early kings can be gathered from the Sāgaratāla inscription of Bhoja published in Arch. Survey Report for 1903-04, a copy of which is purposely given in the appendix for the curious reader. The first king of this family who according to this inscription acquired power was Nāgabhata to whom Smith assigns a reign from 728 to 740 the *Gesta Romanorum*, the *Legenda Aurea*, 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 of the faithful. They were not history in the modern sense of the word; they were moral tales, designed to illustrate the power of God and the vanity of the world.

v2.c29.s1.37

But even in these works, we can see the beginnings of a more critical spirit. The *Gesta Romanorum*, for instance, contains stories that are clearly derived from classical sources, and the *Legenda Aurea* is full of accounts of the lives of the saints that are based on earlier, more reliable records. The Church was not entirely indifferent to the truth; it was simply that its conception of truth was different from our own. It was a truth that was not to be found in the dusty archives of the past, but in the living experience of the present.

v2.c29.s1.38

It is in this context that we must understand the work of the great chroniclers of the Middle Ages, such as Matthew Paris and William of Malmesbury. They were not merely recording events; they were interpreting them in the light of the Christian faith. They saw the hand of God in every event, and they sought to show how the history of the world was, in reality, the history of the salvation of mankind.

v2.c29.s1.39

This, then, was the task of the historian in the Middle Ages: to show how the world was governed by the providence of God, and how the Church was the instrument through which that providence was made manifest. It was a task that required not only learning and industry, but also a deep and abiding faith. And it is for this reason that the history of the Church is, in many ways, the history of the Middle Ages themselves.

v2.c29.s1.40

of Vyāgramukha (mentioned in Vol. I p. 357) and it is hence not probable that Nāgabhata ruled in Bhinmāl. It is in short not possible to determine exactly where Nāgabhata ruled; but his country was undoubtedly Gujaratrā or Marwar and it was exposed to the attacks of the Arabs as completely as or more completely than either Sāmbhar or Chitore. And it is no wonder that the Pratihāra chief Nāgabhata acquired by his determined resistance to foreign invasions and the signal defeat of an Arab army. This must have happened a few years after 712 A. D. the date of the Arab conquest of Sind.

v2.c29.s1.41

The successor of Nāgabhata was his nephew Kakustha or Kakkuka to whose reign Smith assigns the date 740 to 755 A.D. His brother and successor was Devaśakti or Devarāja and his son was Vatsarāja the next illustrious king of the family. Devaśakti has been assigned a reign from 755 to 770 A. D. and Vatsarāja from 770 to 800 A.D. The great exploit of Vatsarāja was that he conquered the king of Kanauj and "wrested the imperial power from the famous family of Bhandi" (Khyātad Bhandi-kulat etc.) "unassailable as it was by the wall of rutting elephants," "by the single help of his own bow." The importance of each word in these lines has not been sufficiently realised and we proceed to draw the attention of the reader to it.

v2.c29.s1.42

In the first place the idea of a Sāmrājya or empire and a Samrāṭ or an emperor of Northern India had long been established in India on a firm footing. It is first mentioned in the Mahābhārata itself wherein Śrīkṛiṣhṇa says (Sabha P. chap. 14) that "the Kshatriyas for fear of the Brahmins had established a confederacy and had appointed an emperor and that Jarāsandha of Magadha was then the emperor of India." Whether the Pāndavas became emperors of India or not, after destroying Jarāsandha, this statement of the Mahābhārata shows that there were emperors in Magadha at least in about 300 B.C. (the date of the Mahābhārata) probably beginning with the Nandas. The idea of an empire was further consolidated by the power of Chandragupta and the greater power of Aśoka and Pātaliputra became the seat of the empire. Later on many imperial dynasties ruled there, the last being that of the Guptas and Samudragupta and Chandragupta were the two great 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.s1.43

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.s1.44

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.s1.45

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.s1.46

be in the east. The proper translation should be king Avanti, Avanti being the name of a king). It follows that Indrāyudha though defeated in 780 A.D. by Vatsarāja was still on the throne of Kanauj. This is not at all strange; for we find from the histories of all countries and of Indian empires in particular that the last kings of a tottering dynasty are allowed to reign under control, nay new puppet emperors are raised for a time, in deference to popular sentiment, before the line is finally uprooted. This is what happened at Delhi under the Marathas and even under the English. Nay the parallel goes still further. When an imperial line is tottering there rises a rivalry between powerful contending kings as to who should become the protector or guardian of the emperor. Such rivalry arose in India in the 18th century between the English, the Marathas and the Afghans. The English were powerful in the east, the Marathas in the south and the Rohillas in the west. The same thing happened about a thousand years before. And Vatsarāja from the west eventually became the master of India. Gopāla (Avanti) king of Bengal opposed him from the east and the Marathas of the 8th century viz., the Rāshṭrakūṭas from the south; for inscriptions of the Pālas and the Rāshṭrakūṭas show to us the contentions that took place about this time. Gopāla of Bengal was defeated by Vatsarāja and *two royal umbrellas* were taken by him, probably the royal emblems of Gauda and Vanga or western and eastern Bengal. But Vatsarāja was in his turn defeated by the Rāshṭrakūṭa king Dhrūva who carried away these two trophies and who "confined Vatsarāja to his own country viz., the desert Gurjaratrā."

First 49 of 160 passages. Read on

Linked texts (12)