Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c35.s14: Genealogy of the Śilahāras of Karhad

History of Mediaeval Hindu India (being a History of India from 600 to 1200 A.D.) v3.c35.s14

Language
English

Genealogy of the Śilahāras of Karhad

v3.c35.s14.1

Jatiga II

v3.c35.s14.2

| . . . . .
| |

v3.c35.s14.3

Gonka Three brothers

v3.c35.s14.4

Mārasinha 1058

v3.c35.s14.5

| . . . . .
| | | | |

v3.c35.s14.6

Guvala Bhoja Ballāla Gandarāditya Vijayāditya

v3.c35.s14.7

Bhoja II (1179-1205)

v3.c35.s14.8

IMPORTANT FEUDATORY KINGLY FAMILIES OF NORTHERN INDIA.

v3.c35.s14.9

In this chapter we propose to notice those feudatory princely families whose inscriptions have been found, who ruled in Northern India during this sub-period. To begin with the north-east corner, we must first notice Assam which, throughout Indian history down to the present day, has been sometimes an independent kingdom, and sometimes a dependency of Bengal. We have a Brahmin general Vaidyadeva ruling there and making a grant in behalf of and under Kumārapāla of Gauda (E. I. II p. 351) which we have already noticed. Then there was a Rāṣṭrakūṭa subordinate prince (Mahaṇa) in Bihar or Anga who was a maternal uncle of Rāmapāla of Gauda as also stated already. There may have been many such feudatories in Bengal and Bihar, but these appear to be the important ones.

v3.c35.s14.10

In the tract south of the Gauda kingdom of the Pālas we have the Haihaya Kalachūri feudatory kingly family of Ratnapura in what is called Dakṣiṇa Kosala. Kielhorn has given their line as follows (E. I. VIII). Kalingarāja, descendant of a younger son of Kokalla who had 18 sons, first conquered this country. He was followed by his son Kamalarāja and he by his son Ratnarāja who is said to have founded Ratnapura and built a Śiva temple there, "thus making the city a rival to the city of Kubera where Śiva always resided." His son was Pṛthvīśa and his son was Jājalla I. His inscription dated 1114 (E. I. I p. 34) has been found. In this inscription he gives a village to a Śiva temple for his Guru Rudraśiva. He also is said to have founded Jājallapura. His son Ratnadeva II defeated Chodaganga of Eastern Gangas of Trikalinga. His son Pṛthvideva II has left an inscription dated 1141 (I. A. X. p. 84). His son Jājalla II made a grant in 1167 (E. I. I p. 40) and his son Ratnadeva III a grant dated 1181 (I. A. XXII p. 82). His son Pṛthvideva III has left an inscription dated 1190 (E. I. I p. 47). We have no further clue to this dynasty. It was practically an independent ruling line, though it might have been subject nominally to the Haihaya kings of Tripura. The country is also called Tummāna in their records (See E. J. I 4047). They were worshippers of Śiva and Brahmanical orthodox Kshatriyas as their gotra Krishnātreya is given even with its pravaras in their records (E. I. I p. 40).

v3.c35.s14.11

Going on next to what is modern U. P. there must have been many feudatory princes in Oudh, Antarbed and Bundelkhand. But we have to mention two important Rajput families only which subsist to this day. The Gautamas are a well-known Rajput clan in U. P. From the Fatehpur Gazetteer we learn that they are an ancient clan with the Bhāradvāja gotra and a former Rāja of Argal had married a sister of Jaichand. Probably the fort of Asni where Jaichand’s treasure was kept was in their possession. The second Rajput clan of which we have even an inscription is the Sengar family. This clan is mentioned among the 36 royal clans. Its present chief principality is that of Jagmanpur in the Jalaun district and there is also a small principality in the Etawa district viz., that of Bhareh. The Sengars claim Rishyaśṛinga a Ṛishi and Śāntā daughter of Daśaratha and sister of Rāma as their ancestors. The tradition among them is that they originally ruled in Anga or Bihar where was born Chaturanga, the first Sengar, from Daśaratha’s daughter Śāntā. When the kingdom of Anga was given to Karṇa by Duryodhana they went to Dāhāla which comprises Central Provinces west and Central India east where they ruled for a long time and where their principalities still survive. They also claim to have ruled in the Deccan and in Gujarat and they state that some Sengars went eastwards also and founded a kingdom in Bardwan in Rādha country and it is believed that a prince from Bardwan went to Ceylon and founded a kingdom there. The name Sinhala is derived, it is believed, from Sinha-Bāhu the name of the father of this prince, as is evidenced by the Mahāvaṅso. A Sengar king Karṇa-Deva is said to have founded Karṇāvati or Kanār on the southern bank of the Jumna. This was the original seat of power of the Sengars of Jagamanpur and there are still ruins of an old fort there which is visited on the Dasera day by the Maharajas of Jagamanpur. They are also said to have ruled in Sironj in Malwa (where they came from Gujarat) so far late as the days of the Moguls.

v3.c35.s14.12

The inscription of this family which has been found however, was issued from Benares where perhaps the donor prince may have gone for pilgrimage. The prince Vatsarāja of the Siṅgāra-Anvaya gave a village to a Brahmin in 1134 A. D. (St. 1191), while Govindachandra was ruling. The inscription is drawn up in the usual Gāhadavāla style, and the first chief is said to have come from Siṅgaroṭa and acquired Rājapaṭṭi or royal tiara. The names of the ancestors of Vatsarāja given are 1 Kamalapāla, 2 Stralhaṇa, 3 Kumāra, 4 Lohaḍadeva; and Vatsarāja the fifth is the grantor. This would take the founder Kamalapāla to about 1050 A. D. i. e. to a time before the rise of the Gāhadavālas. Tradition states that Viśokadeva of Kanār married a daughter of Jaichand. The family appears to be an orthodox Vaidic Rajput family as its gotra Śāṇḍilya is particularly mentioned in this record (E. I. IV p. 131), which is an unusual thing for this period. This incidently proves that Jaichand's gotra could not have been Kāśyapa.

v3.c35.s14.13

It deserves to be mentioned that under king Bhagavantadeva of Bhareh, the eldest offshoot from the ruling house of Kanār who was, like Bhoja and other great Hindu kings, a patron of pandits, was composed the well-known treatise on Hindu Dharma named after him Bhagavanta-Bhāskara by Nīlakaṇṭha Bhaṭṭa. The Vyavahāra Mayūkha, a part of this treatise, is recognised as authority on Hindu law in Konkan, Gujarat and some other parts of the Bombay Presidency.

v3.c35.s14.14

Westward there were Yādavas at Mathura and Mahāban still ruling in about 1150 A. D. A branch of this line is said to have been founded at Biana in 993 A. D. And a stone record of Vijaya has been found at Biana dated 1143 A. D. We know from Mahomedan chronicles that Shihabuddin attacked this place in 1196 and drove Kunvarapāla westward. From him the present rulers of Kerowli are descended (Gauri-shankar's Tod).

v3.c35.s14.15

We may mention next the princes of Meerut and Badaun. The first were Dora Rajputs mentioned in the history of Mahmud. Hastinapur is a village in the Meerut district on the Ganges and perhaps the Doras were Kshatriyas of the race of the Pāndavas. The Tuars however, are supposed to be the direct representatives of the Pāndavas. In Badaun ruled a branch of the Rāshṭrakūṭas as stated in an inscription (E. I. p 64) found in the old fort there. The date of the inscription is not given. We have already commented on it at length. It mentions 1 Chandra, 2 Vigrahapāla, 3 Bhuvanapāla, 4 Gopāla, 5 Tribhuvanapāla, 6 Madanapāla his son (it is recorded of him that through his valour the Hammir could not come to the Ganges), 7 Devapāla, brother, 8 Bhīmapāla, 9 Śūrapāla, 10 Amṛitapāla, and 11 Lakshmaṇapāla his brother. As Badaun was taken by Kutubuddin in the beginning of the 13th century, we may place these 11 kings between 1000 and 1200 A. D. But if we take an average of 12 years per king we have for Chandra a date somewhere about (1200-132) 1068 A. D. and this would make this Chandra identical with Chandra Gāhadavāla who seized Kanauj and founded his empire there. R. B. Gaurishankar Ojha does not think that Chandra of the Badaun inscription is the same as the Chandra of the Gāhadavāla line of Kanauj; but Pandit Rāmakaran of Jodhpur in his history of the Rathods expresses the opinion that they are identical (p. 260-61 ditto).

v3.c35.s14.16

These Rathods and the Gāhadavālas according to our view as already propounded, as also the Rāshṭrakūṭas of Anga (Bihar) belonged to the same clan which was solar by race and were different from the Rāshṭrakūṭas of Malkhed in the Deccan who belonged to the lunar race though both Pandits Rāmkaran and Gaurishankar look upon them as one family. The Rathods of Central India and of Gujarat probably belonged to the southern clan though not the Rāshṭrakūṭas of Hathondi in Rajputana as Gaurishankar also thinks (Tod p. 364). The Rathods of Jodhpur and Bikaner who now represent the northern Rathod clan are like the Gāhadavālas solar in race though they may have the tradition that they came from Kalyan in the south. Rāshṭrakūṭa is an official name as explained elsewhere and the name may be borne by different clans.

v3.c35.s14.17

In Kathiawar Chūdāsamas who are Yādavas and in Cutch the Jādejas who are also Yādavas ruled during this sub-period and the latter are said to have come from Ghazni before Mahmud's time probably. We have no inscription, however, to rely upon. The most important Guhila clan of Kathiawar to which the rulers of Bhavnagar belong, is however, mentioned in an inscription which is dated St. 1202 or 1145 A. D. which shows that they were an important feudatory family ruling under the Chalukyas of Anhilwad and in which a king Sahajiga is mentioned as ruling in Mangrol. These Guhilas are distinct from the Guhilots of Mewad having a different gotra and are separately enumerated in the list of 36 royal families by Chand in the Rasa.

v3.c35.s14.18

The next important family was that of the Paramaras of Abu. The Paramaras originally must have belonged to Abu; for the legend of their origin states that their first ancestor was created by Vashishtha on Mount Abu from his sacrificial fire. The first known king of Abu was Dhumaraja, but the prince in the beginning of our period was Dhandhuka whose minister Vimala-shah built a beautiful temple to Adinatha on Mt. Abn in 1031 A. D. His son Purnapala was a samanta of Bhima of Gujarat in 1045 A. D. (1102 St). His son was Dhruvabhata and his son Ramadeva is mentioned in the Prasasti of Tejapala-Vastupala on Abu. His successor was Vikramasinha. In the fight of Kumarapala with Arnoraja, Vikramasinha suddenly went over to Arnoraja where-upon Kumarapala gave the principality of Abu to his nephew Yasodhavala. His son was the well-known warrior Dharavarsha who was the general of the Gujarat army which defeated Ghori, as stated by Mahomedan writers, in the battle fought in 1178 A. D. during the minority of Mularaja as already stated in Chalukya chapter. Dharavarsha again was one of the commanders in the Gujarat army when it fought with Kutubuddin in 1197 and was defeated. Many inscriptions of his time have been found dating from 1163 to 1208 A. D. (Gaurishankar's Tod p. 384). The princes of Abu named Jeta and Salakh given in the Rasa, Gaurishankar thinks, are imaginary persons. But it is possible to suppose that they were brothers of Dharavarsha and went consequently to Prithviraja to seek their fortune and became his sardars.

v3.c35.s14.19

The Chauhans of Nadul were a valorous line of feudatory kings which deserves to be mentioned. It was a branch from the Chauhans of Sambhar, the first king Lakshmana being a younger son of Vakpatiraja as already stated (Vol. II p. 96).

v3.c35.s14.20

His descendants ruled in Nadul and were usually feudatories of the Chalukya king of Gujarat in whose behalf they usually fought. Thus one of these Āsarāja fought with Malwa as a general of Kumārapāla. He was a great prince, built many tanks and temples and patronised learned men. The present Bundi and Kota ruling families are descended from Mānikarai younger son of this prince (Gaurishankar’s Tod p. 408). Two inscriptions of his son Alhaṇa and of his grandson Kelhaṇa have been found dated 1209 and 1224 St. (1152 and 1167 A. D.). Kelhaṇa’s younger brother Kirtipāla was a famous chief. He was in the Hindu army which defeated Shihabuddin Ghori below Abu. He possessed Jalor and other forts. But Kutub-uddin attacked Jalor and Altamash attacked Mandawar and in both places he must have opposed the Mahomedans. In the days of the last prince Kanhaḍa-deva, Jalor was attacked by Allauddin (Gaurishankar’s Tod p. 40).

v3.c35.s14.21

There are other Rajput kingly families which flourished in this sub-period and which require to be mentioned such as the Bhattis of Jaisalmere. The Bhattis, when Bhatia was destroyed, went into the desert and founded a kingdom in the present Jaisalmere territory and ruled there. The present ruling family of Patiala is believed to belong to this Bhatti line. For want of reliable evidence we can not give further details, and content ourselves with this bare mention.

v3.c35.s14.22

The last two most important families of Northern India which require to be noticed are the Tomaras of Delhi and the Kachhapaghātas of Gwalior from whom are descended two of the most famous Rajput clans of modern India viz. the Tuars and the Kachhwahas. The name Tuar is easily derivable (like Kachhwāha from Kachhapaghāta) from Tomara mentioned in inscriptions. It is believed that Anangapāla Tomara some time in the ninth century founded Delhi. But Delhi was not an important town in the days of Al-Beruni; and this principality of Delhi under the Pratihāras must have been then insignificant. They were supposed to be the direct descendants of the Pāndavas who first founded Indraprastha or ancient Delhi. That there was a village of the name of Indrapat near Delhi in the days of Kutubuddin is clear from the Taj-ul-Ma'sir (E. II p. 210) a contemporary history. The Tomaras are also mentioned, as already noted, in the records of the Chauhans as their natural opponents, being neighbours. There are no Tomara records yet found but their rule in Delhi is mentioned in other records and we proceed to give a short account from these and from the Delhi Gazetteer.

v3.c35.s14.23

The famous iron pillar of Delhi, a pillar unrusted for 1500 years, with letters still clearly readable, is said to have been brought from Mathurā and set up near his new Delhi by Anangapāla about 1052 A. D. There is a note of this on the pillar. This prince seems to have become powerful when the power of the Kanauj emperors was destroyed by Mahmud; and he founded a new town, called it Delhi and made it his capital as we will show presently. The family of Anangapāla ruled in Delhi and the surrounding country for about a century when it was conquered about 1152 A. D. by Visaladeva or Vigraharāja III, Chāhamāna, uncle of Prithvīrāja, from whose time the country passed under the rule of the Chauhans. The story of the Rāsā that Anangapāla, the last Tomara king, gave the kingdom to Prithvīrāja as he was his daughter's son and being himself childless retired to Badarikāśrama is not reliable as Prithvīrāja's mother was a Chedi princess, not a Tomara. In fact the whole story of the Rāsā proves to be imaginary and it is rather difficult to treat as historical many of the events and statements recorded therein. The Gazetteer states that the fort, called Lalkot and still visible, was built by the first Anangapāla (II); and Prithvīrāja built the outer wall of the old town which is still traceable. When Kutubuddin attacked and took the city, the wall and the fort were there and seemed to be invulnerable.

v3.c35.s14.24

It is impossible to determine whether Govindarai, mentioned by Mahomedan historians as of Delhi and as wounding Shihabuddin in the first battle and as killed in the second, was a Tuar or a Chauhan. The Tuars dispersed over many provinces after their defeat but the bulk of them went to Gwaliar territory and settled there in a district which is specially named Tawarghār after them. Tuars are found even in Mahārāshtra under the Maratha name of Māne and others.

v3.c35.s14.25

A genealogy of the Tomaras of Delhi is given by General Cunningham from Abul Fazal and from bardic records and it is taken by Gaurishankar at page 348 (Tod); but no inscriptions can be quoted in support of it. Copper coins of Anangapāla II who built Delhi fort have been found (1051 A.D.). That Delhi was originally founded by the Tomaras and that the country about it called Hariyāna was ruled first by them and subsequently by the Chauhans is found recorded in an inscription in a well dated St. 1384 or 1327 A. D. and four generations of the Chauhans must have ruled there after the Tomaras viz., Visaladeva, Prithvibhata Someśvara and (Delhi Prithvīrāja Museum stone Insc. I. A. XIX p. 218).*

v3.c35.s14.26

The Kachhapaghāta family has left many records especially the Sāsabahu temple record on the Gwalior fort and the Dubhkund Jain temple record in Gwalior territory seventy-six miles south-west of Gwalior. We give the following account of the Kachhapaghātas from these records as also from Gaurishankar's Tod and Kielhorn's genealogies in E. I. VIII.

v3.c35.s14.27

The Kachhapaghātas originally ruled in Narwar (Gwalior territory) or the Nishadha country of Nala of Mahābhārata fame as also of the scene of Bhavabhūti's Mālatī-Mādhava. A prince of this family named Vajradāman, son of Lakshmaṇa seized the fort of Gwalior during the declining days of the Pratihāra empire of Kanauj and established his power there about 977 A. D. (See his record in J. R. A. S. Bengal XXXI p. 393). He is called therein Mahārājādhirāja and was probably independent. But he must have soon been compelled to acknowledge the nominal suzerainty of the Chandellas of Bundelkhand; and Al-Beruni properly says that the two great forts in Chandella territory were Gwalior and Kalanjar. Vajradāman's son was Mangalarāja and his son was Kirtirāja who is described as having defeated Malwa (probably king Bhoja is here meant). Mahmud of Ghazni invested Gwalior in the days of Kirtirāja and he was discreet enough to save himself and his kingdom by presenting 30 elephants and accepting nominal subjection. His son was Mūladeva alias Trailokya-Malla and Bhuvanapāla. His son was Devapāla alias Aparājita and his son was Padmapāla whose nephew Mahīpāla or Bhuvanaika-Malla recorded the inscription above mentioned dated 1093 A. D. (I. A. XV p. 36) which gives these details. The insc. further mentions that Kirtirāja built a temple to Pārvatīpati in the town of Sihamana. Mahīpāla had come to the throne a little before the date of this inscription (St. 1150) in the Sāsabahu temple on the Gwalior fort. It is a Viṣṇu temple and it was commenced by Padmapāla and consequently the deity was named Padmanātha. The Kachhwahas seem to be Vaiṣṇavas from this king, a peculiarity which still distinguishes them. There is some misconception about the origin of the above mentioned name Sāsabahu given to these two temples on the Gwalior fort. We think that the name merely means the larger and smaller temples. The Gwalior Gazetteer derives the name from Sahasrabāhu which is not tenable not being a usual name of Viṣṇu or Śiva. The lesser Sāsabahu temple which is like the bigger one was built in 1108 A. D. (I. A. XVI p 201).

v3.c35.s14.28

∗ देशोस्ति हरियानाख्यः पृथिव्यां स्वर्गसन्निभः । ढिल्लिकाख्या पुरी तत्र तोमरैरस्ति निर्मिता ॥ तोमरानन्तरं तस्यां राज्यं निहतकण्टकम् । चाहमाना नृपाश्चक्रुः प्रजापालनतत्पराः ॥

v3.c35.s14.29

Gaurishankar mentions the following kings after Mahīpāla with dates (Tod p. 373): son Tribhuvanapāla (named Madhusūdanapāla in the Gwalior Gazetteer) with date 1104 A. D., his son Vijayapāla date 1133, his son Sūrapāla date 1155 and his heir-apparent Anangapāla. His successor must have been Solankhapāla who was invested in the fort by Shihabuddin Ghori in 1196 A. D. But the Gwalior Gazetteer states that the Parihāras took the fort from the Kachhwahas in 1129. In this view, Solankhapāla must have been a Parihāra. It appears that the fort was surrendered formally to Kutubuddin. But the Gwaliornāma published by Prince Balwantrao Bhayya-saheb Scindia states that the Parihāras took possession of the fort again and they were dislodged by Altamash as will be related later on. The Kachhapaghātas must have left the place as too near Delhi and receded to a more distant place or gone back to Narwar.

v3.c35.s14.30

A branch family of this line ruled at Dubhkund seventy-six miles south-west of Gwalior and two inscriptions of these have been found (I. A. XIV p. 10 and E. I. II p. 293). These inscriptions give very interesting information. The first king mentioned is Yuvarāja and his son was Arjuna who is said to have himself killed with an arrow, Rājyapāla Pratihāra king of Kanauj when attacked by a Rajput confederacy headed by the Chandella king Ganda assisted by the Gwalior Kachhapaghāta king. His son was Abhimanyu whose skill in horsemanship and archery was extolled even by Bhoja king of Malwa.∗ His son was Vijayapāla whose date is 1044 and his son was Vikramasinha date 1088. This family must have been a feudatory of the Gwalior kings who were practically independent though acknowledging nominal suzerainty of the Chandellas.

v3.c35.s14.31

∗ यस्यात्यद्भुतवाहनमहाशस्त्रप्रयोगदिषु । प्रावीण्यं प्रविकातियतं पृथुमतिश्रीभोजपृथ्वीभुजा ॥ Dubhkund Insc, E. I. III.

v3.c35.s14.32

The name of the family Kachhapaghāta is also given in inscriptions as Kachhapāri and is undoubtedly the original form of the modern name Kachhwaha which is clearly derivable from it according to the rules of Prakrit transformation. What the name means it is difficult to state and we have already said that names arise in various ways. Whatever the origin, the Kachhwaha clan was always acknowledged as among the best Rajput families, being the first named in the list of 36 royal clans enumerated by Chand and as their rise precedes the rise of the Gāhadavālas in whose time the list was first probably made, their mention first was natural especially as they were entrusted with the command of the army assembled to punish the apostate Pratihāra king of Kanauj, as stated above.

Linked texts (10)