|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA emperor Salem Shāh (Jahāngīr), his feudatory Rāṇā Karṇasiṁha of Mewār, and the latter’s subordinate at Rāmapura (Rāmpurā) in the following words : Dīlīrāja-Pātasāha-śrī-Salemasāhajī Chītrakūṭarāja vāsa Udepu[ra*] Rāṇā-śrī-Amara-sīghajī tasya putra Rāṇā-śrī-Karaṇasīghajī Rāmapura-rājakara Rāva-śrī-Chaṁdrabhāṇajī tasyā rāṇī Chohāṇa Prabhāvatī-bāījī bāvaḍī prasāda bāga udhāsyō.[1] There is no word in the passage expressing Rāva Chandrabhāṇa’s subordination to Karnasiṁha and the latter’s subordination to the Mughal emperor, although there cannot be any doubt about their position. The above section of the inscription is followed by the names of four of the artisans or masons (kārāgara) who were employed in the construction of the step-well (lines 13 ff.). These were : Kārāgara Lālū,[2] Śrīchandra, Rāgū and Kārāgara Bhīwa. It is stated that, of the many workers employed for the work, the four named above were the foremost (bahuta kārāgara, tina madhye chāri baḍā). Here ends the main record with the word iti and this is followed by a sort of supplement in the concluding lines (lines 16 ff.). Lines 16-17 are engraved as the first halves of lines 14-15 containing the closing part of the record discussed above and may have been written in the original draft, copied on the stone, as a marginal note. The first of these two lines gives the name of the writer, while the second saying ‘ the expenses [on account] of the step-well (vāikī lāgati in which lāgati=lāgti is same as Hindī lāgat) ’ was meant to be a heading for the details of the expenditure given in the following lines. The writer was jo Rāmadāsa. The contraction jo appears to indicate a word like joisī, jois, joshī, etc., which are corruptions of Sanskrit jyotishin, i.e. a professional astrologer or astronomer. The amount spent for the step-well, as given in line 18, was ṭaṁ 1001 (quoted both in words and figures) for which the equivalent in Mewār currency (Mevāḍyā nāṇā) is given as ṭhaka 6106 ṭaṁ 1 or ṭhaṁkaḍa 106 ṭaṁ 1. In this passage, the abbreviation ṭaṁ apparently signifies the ṭaṅka, very probably meaning the silver coins of that name issued by the Muslim rulers of Delhi, especially those of Sher Shāh and Islām Shāh. Unfortunately the ratio between the Mewār coin and the Delhi ṭaṅka cannot be determined. The inscription ends with the maṅgala, ‘ May it be well ! ’, and the mention of the name of god Rāma, thrice repeated.
The importance of the inscription lies in the fact that it refers to Rāṇā Udayasiṁha (1537-73 A.D.) of Mewār as a feudatory of the Sūr emperor Islām Shāh (1545-54 A.D.), son of Sher Shāh (1539-45 A.D.). We know that in V.S. 1594 (1537 A.D.) Udayasiṁha was recognised as the Rāṇā of Mewār by the feudatories at Kumbhalgarh and that he recovered Chitor from Vanavīra in V.S. 1597 (1540 A.D.).[3] He was a contemporary of all the rulers of the Sūr dynasty (1539-56 A.D.), founded by Sher Shāh, although little is as yet definitely known as regards the Rāṇā’s relations with the Sūrs. As will be seen below, according to Muslim historians, Sher Shāh occupied Chitor in 1543 or 1544 A.D. ; but they are silent as to whether the Rāṇā offered his allegiance to the Sūr emperor or continued to hold sway over parts of Mewār outside the Chitor region as independent _______________________________________________
[1] My attention to this record was drawn by Professor Ramachandra G. Tiwari of the Pratap College, Amalner,
East Khandesh District, Bombay State. Among other records containing statements of this kind, mention may
be made of two inscriptions from Sitamau (Mandasor District, Madhya Bharat), transcripts of which were received
by me from Mahārājkumār Dr. Raghubir Sinh of Sitamau. One of these is dates V.S. 1761 (1705 A.D.) and
contains the passage : Pātasāha-śrī-Oraṁgajebaḥ Rāṇā Amarasīghaḥ Jāgī[r*]dāraḥ Rāṭhoḍa-Kasodāsa. The
other record, dated V.S. 1775 (1718 A.D.), has : Pātasāhā-śrī-Sapharakaseṇajī Rāṇajī Amara (sic. Saṁgrāma)-sīghajī Mahārājajīḥ Keśodāsajī. Although these inscriptions do not state the relationship existing between
Rāṭhor Keśavadāsa of Sitaman and the Rāṇā of Mewār, Amarasiṁha II (1678-1710 AD.) or Saṁgrāmasiṁha II
(1710-34 A.D.), and between the latter and the Mughal emperor of Delhi (Aurangzeb, 1658-1707 A.D., in the first
record, and Farrukhsiyar, 1713-19 A.D., in the second), there can be no doubt that the fief-holder of Sitamau
owed allegiance to the Rāṇā who himself acknowledged the suzerainty of the Mughal emperor.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
