|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
wrested the kingdom of the Mōri chief Manu (Mānabhaṅga), became its ruler and took the title of
Rāvala for his family.[1]
The Rājapraśasti then follows with the names of 26 Rāvals of whom the last was Karṇasiṁha.[2]
Though many of these names are found in the Āṭpur inscription of V.S. 1034, which for the first
time gives a number of names of the Guhila chiefs, and a few other earlier records known so far,[3]
their chronology, relationship and the order of succession as given in the Rājapraśasti are not at all
accurate. It, however, gives the succession of the rulers from Arisiṁha, father of Hammīra, onwards
correctly. This would indicate that its author had a knowledge of the genealogy of the later rulers
perhaps from some of the late records, though it is clear that he was not acquainted with the early
records of the dynasty and drew his material entirely from the bardic chronicles.
The praśasti contains very little information about the Rāvals and whatever little is given is
found to be incorrect. Karṇasiṁha’s father Samarasiṁha is stated here to have married Pṛithā,
of a sister the Chauhān king Pṛithvīrāja and died in the battlefield fighting for his brother-in-law
against Shahābuddin Ghūrī. The same story is repeated by Col. Tod in his Annals on the
authority of the chronicles. But this is impossible from the chronological point of view. Pṛithvīrāja died in 1192 A.D. and Samarasiṁha was still alive in 1302 A.D., i.e. more than one hundred
years later. They could, therefore, have never been contemporaries. The Guhila contemporary of
Pṛithvīrāja was Sāmantasiṁha and not Samarasiṁha and, if there is any truth in the matrimonial
connection between these two families, the reference must be to Sāmantasiṁha. But so far no inscription has been found to support this conjecture. Moreover, we know that Ratnasiṁha and
not Karṇasiṁha was the son of Samarasiṁha. Karṇasimha, according to the Rāṇpur and
Kumbhalgaḍh inscriptions (where he is called Raṇasiṁha), was the son of Vikramasiṁha and
flourished long before the time of Samarasiṁha. The Ēkaliṅga-māhātmya calls him Karṇasiṁha and
says that from him sprang the two branches─those of Rāṇā and Rāval. Again, according to the
Rājapraśasti, of the two sons of Karṇa Māhapa who was the elder, became the ruler of Ḍungarpur
and Rāhapa the younger son, after he had defeated Mōkalasiṁha of Māṇḍor, was given the title of
Rāṇā, and made the ruler of Chitor by his father Karṇāsiṁha. But we have ample evidence to
show that neither of the statements is correct. Both Māhapa and Rāhapa belonged to the Rāṇā
branch of Sisōdā, while Karṇasiṁha’s eldest son, Rāval Khēmasiṁha, succeeded to the rule of
Mewār. His next seven successors were Kuṃārasiṁha, Mathanasiṁha, Padmasiṁha, Jaitrasiṁha,
Tējasiṁha, Samarasiṁha and Ratnasiṁha.[4] Actually, Khēmasiṁha’s eldest son Sāmantasiṁha
succeeded his father ; but afterwards he lost his kingdom of Mewar to an enemy and had to remain
statisfied with the remaining part of his kingdom including Vāgaḍa (present Ḍungarpur and
Bānswārā). Ojha names this usurper as the Chāhamāna Kīrtipāla (Kītu)[5] who was finally ousted
by Sāmantasiṁha’s younger brother Kumārasiṁha who took upon himself the rule of Mewār.[6]
According to the Sadaḍi inscription of V.S. 1496 of the time of Rānā Kumbhakarṇa,7 however, the
credit of defeating Kītu goes to Bhuvanasiṁha of the Sisōdā branch who is also credited with
the victory over Alāuddīn (Khaljī). But neither statement can be correct as the date of Bhuvana-
____________________________________________
[1] See also above, pp. 3 and 6. Bhandarkar identifies Bappa with Siṁha of the Āṭpur inscription and Ojha with
Kālabhōja. See Bhandarkar’s List, p. 388, n. 8 ; Ojha, History of Rājputānā (in Hindi), pp. 404 ff.
[2] For a list of these kings, see above, p. 4.
[3] These are the Sāmoli inscription of Śilāditya, V.S. 703, the Nāgdā inscription of Aparājita, V.S. 718, Partābgarh and Āhāḍ inscriptions of Bhartṛipaṭṭa V.S. 999 and 1000, Āhāḍ inscription of Allaṭa, V.S. 1008 and 1010
and Ēkliṅga inscription of Naravāhana, V.S. 1028.
[4] For these rulers, see Ojha, op. cit., pp. 458 ff.
[5] Ojha, op. cit., pp. 453 ff.
[6] See Mount Abu inscription of Samarasiṁha, V. 1342 ; Ind. Ant., Vol. XVI, pp. 347 ff.
[7] Bhandarkar, A.S.I. An. Rep., 1907-08, pp. 214 ff.
|
