Chahamana Polity : Research Work.
 |
MS*. Publisher. / Writer. Dr.Madhup Co. Shakti Priya.Dr.Sunita. |
 | |
* Times Media Advertising Supporting. * Wireless Private Limited Market Research : Mumbai.Shakti Jyoti Arya Narendra Powered * Krishna : Karma : Krinvanto Vishwam Aryam *
|
Nirmala Sinha.
 |
Synopsis : Page : 0/1 * Aspects of Chahamana's Polity * Polity : a form or process of civil government or constitution is termed as polity. It widely meant a complete state governance in a political entity that stood for the welfare of people and an organized society. The science of polity was well known to the people in ancient India. It was known by several names like Rajadharma, Rajyasasıra, Dandaniti, Nitisastra and Arthasastra. Though the science of polity developed as an independent science only around seventh century B.C., there has been continuous flow of literature on polity since the earliest times. One thing is quite clear from these earlier works that monarchy was the prevailing system of government because they devoted considerable space to the discussion about prince and qualifications of an ideal ruler. Arab conquest of Sind in 712 : They also contain valuable suggestions regarding administrative set up. These aspects of polity are available in the Chahamana's time.  With the Arab conquest of Sind in 712 A.D. The Arabs first set a foothold in India. From Sind they tried to penetrate into western India, but met a rebuff from the pratiharas. The later empire was based on tradition of national greatness in resisting the Arab invasion. For about two centuries it was able to fulfil its historical mission. But by 950 A.D. the Pratihara empire was definitely on decline. The political unity of Northern India was lost, and a number of dynasties began to rise into independence. These were the Chandellas in Bundelkhand, the Chahamanas in Sakambhari, the Chalukya in Gujarat and the Kalachunis in Tripuri. These dynasties were generally grouped together under the name Rajput. But they came into conflict with one another and supremacy rested in turn with one of them. However. the Chahamanas of Sakambhari played a very sigrific ant role in the political and administrative history of Northern India for several centuries before the advent of the Arabs rule in the country. It appears that the administrative system of the period was well organised and it was divided into several wings for better and efficient administration. It is the polity of this valiant Chahamana dynasty of Sakambhari that forms the chief theme of our study. We have tried to discuss the subject from an analytical standpoint. With the help of available evidences a new theory has been attempted about the administrative structure of that dynasty For convenience, the work has been divided into the following chapters:- Chapter : 1 : Kingship Chapter : 2 : Members of the royal family and the ministry. Chapter : 3 : The Chahamana overlordship. Chapter : 4 : Secretariat and Central Government departments. Chapter : 5 : Officials feudatories - territorial units. Chapter : 6 : Judicial, military and revenue administration. Conclusion Bibliography Sign of Supervisor Sign of Candidate. * CERTIFICATE : Page : 0 /2 *  * |
| ||
* PREFACE : Page : 0 /3 *
|
 |
| Dr.Madhup. |
 |
| Rani Padmavati. |
 |
| Dr Madhup |
 | |
|
Since the king was the head of the state, it seems that it was felt necessary to raise to the throne a competent member of the ruling family. In the pre-independence period, as long as the Chahamanas acknowledged allegiance to the Pratiharas, it was not much necessary that the ruler should be endowed with distinct qualities so as to enable him to direct the ship of the state; for there was the overlord to guide him in difficult circumstances. A minor or a less capable person might very well occupy the position of the head of the state. Hence Samantaraja’s successors, like Naradeva, Jayaraja, Vigraharaja I, Chamundaraja I and Gopendraraja were all insignificant rulers. But after the attainment of independence, it was a matter of grave concern whether the state was in capable hands or not. Interestingly enough, just in this period we find the case of suppression of legal heirs by distant relatives within the ruling family. Thus after Viryarama’s death the throne ought to have passed to his elder son Durlabharaja, but we find from our accepted sources that Viryarama was succeeded by his brother Chamundaraka.[1]
In addition to these imperious titles, a divine character was also attributed to these later Chahaman rulers by their court poets and chroniclers. The Delhi Shivalik pillar inscription calls Vigraharaja IV as Purushottama[2] i.e. God Vishnu Himself. In the Hansi stone inscription, Prithviraja II si compared with Rama.[3] The Prthvirajavijaya mentions that Prithviraja III and his brother Hariraj were the two ‘incarnations of Rama and Lakshmana.’[4]
qualifications laid down by Sukra and Kamandaka are numerous but we need not devote much space to them, as they are the same as those described by the earlier political writers. Inscriptions and works on polity of our age emphasise that a king can became a successful ruler only if he waits upon the elders, studies the art of government, cultivates righteousness and protects his subjects as efficiently as the divine guardians. He was expected to be always in constant association with virtuous and learned men in order to derive the benefit of their experience and advice. He was to be kind-hearted and was not to oppress his subjects for his own selfish interest.
*
 |
* Samyukta : Sanyogita was the legendary Princess of Kannauj Courtesy : Photo : Queen : Samyukta Shakti of Prthviraja Chauhan. |
Jayasimha.[140] This is confirmed by the Kirti Kaumudi of Somesvara which states that the Chahamana ruler out of fear bowed down his head to Jayasimha, who in turn gave his daughter in marriage to Arnoraja.[141]
With
the accession of Arnoraja to the Chahamana throne, the Chahamana- The
Prthvirajavijaya also mentions that Arnoraja had two queens,
of whom one came from Gurjara.[142]
According to the commentator Jonaraja, the Gurjara ruler was Jayasimha and his
daughter, who married Arnoraja, was named Kanchanadevi.[143] The
Sambhor stone inscription probably indicates the defeat of Arnoraja by
Jayasimha, who even seems to have occupied Sambhor for some time,[144]
from where this inscription of him was issued.
It is thus clear that
Chahamana Arnoraja had to acknowledge defeat at the hands of Chaulukya
Jayasimha. The struggle probably ended in a peace settlement, and Jayasimha’s
daughter was married to the Chahamana ruler.
The reasons which
induced Jayasimha to form a matrimonial alliance with his vanquished enemy are
unknown. It seems to be a very clever stroke of diplomacy on Jayasimha’s part
to pacify his Chahamana neighbour, so that the life and death struggle against
the Paramaras of Malava could be continued uninterruptedly. The policy was
highly successful, and for the time being, the Paramara kingdom was laid to the
dust. In this struggle Jayasimha obviously got an active help from his
son-in-law Arnoraja. While the Chaulukya sources claimed Jayasimha’s great
success over Paramara Naravarman of Malava, the Bijolia inscription also
mentions that Chahamana Arnoraja humiliated one Nirvana Narayana,[145]
i.e., Naravarman, for it was an epithet of the Paramara ruler.[146]
According to D. Sharma, the fragmentary Chahamana prasasti also claims success
of Arnoraja over Naravarman.[147]
But this good
Chahamana-Chaulukya relationship came to an end after the death of Jayasimha,
and gave way to a bitter struggle when the next Chaulukya ruler Kumarapala
ascended the throne in C. 1143 A.D.
There are conflicting
accounts of the origin of the struggle between Arnoraja and Kumarapala. From
Merutunga[148]
and Hemachandra[149] it
appears that it was caused due to the sheer ambition of the Chahamana king, who
finding a new ruler on the throne of Gujarat made an alliance with Bahada, the
rival of Kumarapala for the throne, and suddenly invaded the Chaulukya kingdom.
But according to jayasimha Suri[150] the
war was started due to the insult meted out by Arnoraja to his queen
Devaladevi, who happened to be the sister of Kumarapala. To avenge this insult,
the Chaulukya ruler marched with his army.
Jayasimha Suri’s account
of the personal factor which led to the Chahamana-Chaulukya conflict seems
unconvincing. According to the more reliable Jaina authorities, like Merutunga
and Hemachandra, the cause of the conflict was political rather than personal.
Moreover, from the Prthvirajavijaya,
one of the most authentic sources
of the Chahamaas of Sakambhari, it appears that Arnoraja had two queens one
Kanchanadevi of Fujarata, the daughter of Jayasimha, and the other Sudhava of
Marwar.[151]
As Arnoraja had no queen named Devaladevi, so Jayasimha Suri’s story of her
insult by her husband which led to the war, cannot be accepted.
It seems that the real
cause of the war was political. This is to be traced in the domestic trouble of
the Chaulukya family after the death of Jayasimha.[152]
Jayasimha had no male
issue to succeed him. In fact, the problem of succession had been under
discussion while he was alive. Kumarapala was the strongest claimant on the
throne, both because he belonged to the royal family and also as the nearest
relation of the king. But Jayasimha was unwilling to accept him as his
successor, because there were some question about the legitimacy of the branch
to which Kumarapala belonged. Hence Jayasimha nominated Bahada, his adopted
son, as his successor. This naturally offended Kumarapala, who, therefore,
tried to assert his position. It appears that an inter-family dispute began.
This embittered the last days of Jayasimha, who is said to have driven away
Kumarapala into exile. Shortly, after Kumarapala returned from his exile, and
Jayasimha suddenly died in C. 1143 A.D. Dr. H.C. Ray suspects some foul play
about the sudden death of Jayasimha.[153]
Thereafter, Kumarapala
ascended the Chaulukya throne with the help of the powerful Jaina party in
Gujarat and his brother-in-law Krishnadeva, who was the supreme commander of
the state army.[154]
Naturally those who had supported Jayasimha fell into disfavour of the new
king. This seems to have been the real cause of the struggle that ensued
between Kumarapala and Arnoraja, for the latter had marrid Jayasimha’s
daughter.
But Kumarapala had to
face a great difficulty due to the combination of his enemies against him.
Bahada, the rival claimant for the Chaulukya throne, persuaded Arnoraja to help
him, who readily agreed.[155]
Further, Arnoraja made a scheme with king Ballala of Western Malava to invade
the Chaulukya kingdom.[156] It
was arranged that Arnoraja and Ballala would attack Kumarapala from the north
and the east respectively, while an internal insurrection was to be raised in
the Chaulukya kingdom simultaneously. For the time being the position of
Kumarapala was really critical. But he was fortunate that the scheme of his
enemies was not successful, and he was able to maintain his position. This was
partly due to his ability as a soldier, and partly to the failure of his
enemies who could not act in a concerted manner. Bahada was taken prisoner;
Arnoraja was completely defeated; and all attempts for internal insurrection
were frustrated. The Dvyasrayamahakavya
of Hemachandra mentions that
Arnoraja had to buy peace by marrying his daughter to Kumarapala.[157]
Inscriptional evidences
also support the literary account of the defeat of Arnoraja at the hands of
Kumarapala. The Kradu[158] and
Bhatund[159]
inscriptions show that the Chahamana principality of Naddula was annexed within
the kingdom of the Chaulukya monarch. Naddula formed the buffer state between
the Chahamana and the Chaulukya kingdoms. According to H.C.Ray the Chaulukya
possession of Naddula ‘must have been effected by successful war.’[160]
This view point seems to be confirmed by one of the Chitorgadh stone
inscriptions of Kumarapala which clearly states that the Chahamana king was
defeated and his kingdom was devastated by Kumarapala.[161]
H.C. Ray, however, doubts about the complete humiliation of Arnoraja, and holds
the opinion that the Chahamana-Chaulukya conflict on the border of Naddula
‘raged for at least 8 years.[162] It
was probably brought to an end with a matrimonial alliance.
Arnoraja and the Muslims :
The other important incident of the reign of
Arnoraja was a clash with the Muslims. The Prthvirajavijaya mentions that once
Arnoraja utterly defeated the Turushkas, and slaughtered them in large numbers
when they had entered the Chahamana territory by crossing the desert. He then
purified the place by constructing a lake and filling it with the water of the
river Chandra.[163]
H.C. Ray properly indentifies the river Chandra with the river Luni which ‘takes
its rise in the Sambhar lake and flows by Pushkar.’[164] The
lake constructed by Arnoraja may be, therefore, indentified with the famous
Anasagara lake near Ajmer named after him.[165] The
Turushkas thus appear to have reached as far as Ajmer. According to Ray these
Turushkas were the troops of the Yaminis of Lahors, and they directed their
attack against the temples of the sacred Pushkaratirtha.[166]
Arnoraja’s other MilitaryAchievements :
Arnoraja achieved success in other
directions as well. On the basis of the fragmentary Chahamana prasasti of the
Ajmer Museum, Dr. D. Sharma points out that Arnoraja made a successful invasion
in the Haritanka country, and marched victoriously upto the Sindhu and the
Sarasvati.[167]
Both the Palam Baoli[168] and
Delhi Museum[169]
inscriptions mention that the Haritanaka or Hariyana country was ruled by the
Tomara Rajputs with Dhillika or Delhi as its capital. But Arnoraja did not
achieve a decisive victory over the Tomaras, for the struggle continued during
the reign of his son Vigraharaja IV when the Tomaras were finally beaten and
their territory was annexed to the Chahamana dominion.
The Bijolia inscription
mentions that Arnoraja also conquered the kingdom of Varana[170]
which was situated closely to the Haritanka country. Thus it seems that Arnoraja
successfully carried his armies northwards through the teritories of Varana and
Haritanaka upto the Sindhu and the Sarasvati in the Eastern Punjab. The
Chahamanas now became so powerful as to make an attempt for establishing their
overlordship in Northern India. The policy was vigorously persued during the
reign of his son Vigraharaja IV.
JUGADEVA :
The Prthvirajavijaya states
that the eldest son of Arnoraja ‘rendered the same services to his father as
Bhrgu’s son Parasurama had rendered to his mother.’[171]
This clearly indicates that Arnoraja was killed by his eldest son. But
unfortunately the Prthvirajavijaya does not mention the name of the parricide.
However, on the basis of the Prabandhakosa
the Hammira-mahakavya
and the Surjanacharita H.C.Ray
considers that most probably his name was Jugadeva.[172]
It may be assumed, therefore, that Arnoraja’s eldest son, named Jugadeva,
ascended the Chahamana throne by murdering his father. But he could not rule
long, and was soon overthrown by his younger brother Vigraharaja.[173]
VIGRAHARAJA
IV :
After deposing Jugadeva his
younger brother Vigraharaja IV ascended the throne of Sakambhari. The earliest
of his inscriptions dated in V.S. 1210 (= C. 1153 A.D.)[174]
has been discoverd in a mosque at Ajmer, known as the Adhaidinka-Jhonpra. The last three inscriptions of his reign are
found from the Siwalik Pillar of Asoka, now in Delhi, and they were issued in
V.S. 1220 (= C. 1164 A.D.).[175]
His known dates, therefore, vary from V.S. 1210 to V.S. 1220 (=C. 1153-1164
A.D.). It is very likely that he did not occupy the throne much earlier than
1153, and reign much beyond 1164. Though his reign was not a long one, yet it
marks an important stage in the progress of Chahamana power.
Vigraharaja
IV and the Chaulukyas :
In the south-west of Sakambhari
lay the Chaulukya kingdom of Gujarat, then ruled by Kumerapala (C. 1143-1173)
A.D. He was not at a good relation with the Chahamanas. Vigraharaja’s father
Aroraja, having suffered defeats at the hands of Kumarapala, had to purchase
peace by marrying his daughter to the Chaulukya king. With the accession of
Vigraharaja to the Chahamana throne, the old dynastic struggle again flared up.
This was probably due to the ambition of the new Chahamana king and his desire
for avenging the defeat and humiliation of his father.
But
the course of this Chahamana-Chaulukya struggle is not easy to follow.
The contemporary sources of this period seem to put forward different and
contradictory claims. Thus the third Delhi Siwalik Pillar inscription of Vigraharaja
IV claims to have conqured and exacted tributes from all the territories lying
between the Himalayas and the Vindhyas.[176]
On the other hand, the Chaulukya chronicles like the Kumarapala-Charita[177]
of Jayasimha Suri and the Kumarapala-prabandha[178]
of Jinamandan, put forward the claims that Chaulukya Kumarapala conquered all
the lands ‘upto the Ganges on the east, Vindhyas on the south, Sindh on the
west, and upto the Turuska (land)on the north.[179]
In
view of such contradictory claims, the fortune of the Chahama-Chaulukya
struggle may be studied only by gathering the chages effected in the position
of the border lands of the two kingdoms.
Chahamana
settlements had been established at Nadol, Jalor and Pali at the borders of the
Chaulukya kingdom. But from the Chaulukya sources it appears that these places
were included into the domains of Kumarapala. The Kumarapala-charita of
Jayasimha Suri mentions that Javalipura (modern Jalor) first submitted to
Kumarapala when he started for his digvijaya (world-conquest).[180]
The Kradu (V.S. 1209 = C. 1153 A.D.) and the Ratanpur (undated), inscriptions,
in the opinion of Dr. H.C. Ray, clearly indicate that Nadol was controlled by
the Chaulukya ruler.[181]
The Bhatund inscription of V.S. 1210 (= C.1254 A.D.) mentions that Kumarapala
appointed Vaijaka as the Dandanayaka (governor) of the Nadol area.[182]
On the basis of the Kumarapala-Prabandha. A.K. Majumdar suggests the
conquest of Pali by Kumarapala.[183]
His Pali inscription of V.S. 1209 (= C. 1153 A.D) also confirms this view
point.[184] Thus
the Chahamana frontier principalities of Jalor, Nadol and Pali, were all
occupied by the Chaulukya king.
On
the other hand, there is the epigraphic evidence to show that Chahamana
Vigraharaja IV also obtained a briliant success over these frontier lands. The
Bijolia inscription of V.S. 1226 (=C. 1170 A.D.) States that Vigraharaja “due
to resentment made Javalipura (Jalor) a city of flames, Pallika (Pali) an
insignificant village and Naddula (Nadol) like a bed of reeds.”[185]
Thus
the Chahamana-Chaulukya struggle affected seriously those principalities which
were situated at the borders of the two kingdoms. These often changed hands. It
appears that by defeating Chahamana Arnoraja, the Chaulukya monarch had
included those frontier lands into his kingdom. The Chalukya epigraphic
evidence indicates that in A.D. 1153.[186]
1156[187]
and 1159.[188]
Nadol and the neighbouring areas were in Kumarapala’s hands. On the other hand,
the Bijolia inscription of V.S. 1226 (= C. 1170 A.D.), issued during the reign
of Chahamana Somesvara states that Vigraharaja reduced Nadol and Pali, and
burnt the town of Jalor. Vigraharaja himself claims in the third Delhi Siwalik
Pillar inscription of V.S. 1220 (= C. 1164 A.D.) his sovereign authority in
Northern India. It appears, therefore, that the Chahamana sovereign recovered
the above places in between 1160 and 1164. But as Vigraharaja met with an early
death and his successors were involved in inter-family disputes, so Kumarapala
was able to retrieve his position, as indicated in the Jalor,[189]
and the Nadlai[190]
inscriptions, dated respectively in V.S. 1221 (=C. 1164 A.D.) and V.S. 1228 (=
C. 1171 A.D.).
According
to H.R.Ray the Chahamana ruler preferred the northern region as the field of
his expansion, because he found a formidable rival” like Kumarapala on the
southern border of his kingdom.[191]
This view point of Ray requires a critical examination. Kumarapala was
undoubtedly a very powerful ruler, but at the same time it appears that he was
circumscribed by Chahamana Vigraharaja. This is clear from the Bijolia
inscription which states that Vigraharaja defeated and killed on Sajjana.[192]
From the Chitorgadh stone inscription it appears that this Sajjan most probably
was the Chaulukya governor of Chitor.[193]
If this view is accepted, then by defeating and killing his governor,
Vigraharaja certainly humiliated Kumarapala. Further, Vigraharaja challenged
the authority of the Chaulukya monarch when he captured his frontier
principalities. These were recovered by Kumarapala only when the Chahamana
ruler was dead. Vigraharaja also seems to have conquered a substantial portion
of Mewar in the southern region. This is evident from the fact that henceforth
Chahamana inscriptions were issued from such distant places as Jahazpur,
Bijolia and mandalgarh in Mewar. Thus it is significant to note tha
Vigraharaja’s southern campaign was not without success inspite of the presence
of his powerful rival Kumarapala.
Vigraharaja
IV and the Tomaras :
The Bijolia inscription[194]
credits Vigraharaja IV with the conquest of Dhillika (Delhi) and Asika (Hansi).
The Chahamanas probably captured these two places from the hands of the
Tomaras, who were recognised as “one of the 36 celebrated Rajput tribes.”[195]
The conquest is confirmed by two later inscriptions found during the Muslim rule
in India, viz. the Palam Baoli inscription of V.S. 1337 (=1280 A.D.)[196]
and the Delhi Museum inscription V.S. 1384 (C= 1328 A.D.).[197]
According
to H.C.Ray[198]
the Tomaras probably settled themselves in Delhi and its neighbourhood about
the 9th century A.D.During the reign of Bhoja (C. 836-882 A.D.) and
Mahendrapala (C. 893-907 A.D.) they came under the sovereign authority of the
Pratiharas. When the Pratihara power began to decline in the beginning of the
10th century, the Tomaras established themselves round Delhi by
securing their independence. But soon they found very strong neighbours in the
Chahamanas of Sakambhari. Consequently there ensued a struggle between these
two dynasties which continued for more than 250 years. It was started during
the riegn of Chahamana-Chandanaraja (C. 900-910 A.D.) and finally ended in the
capture of Delhi and Hansi by Vigraharaja IV shortly before 1164 A.D. The
Tomara principality passed out of history.
Vigraharaja
IV and the Muslims :
The conquest of Delhi and Hansi
made VigraharajaIV master of the strategic land lying between the Sutlej and
the Yamuna. This made him the neighbour of the Ghaznavite Muslims of the
Punjab, which led to the inevitable struggle between the Chahamanas and the
Muslims.
His
cleash with the Muslims seems to have been first mentioned in the Lalita-Vigraharaja,[199]
a drama composed by his court-poet, Mahakavi Somadeva. According to this
drama Vigraharaja got the news from his spy that the Hammira had
advanced with a large army as far as Vavvera and sent a messenger to the
Chahamana king for asking his surrender. Vigraharaja consulted with his
maternal uncle Simhabala and his chief minister Sridhara, asto what should be
done. The cautious minister advised the king to avoid any battle with the
powerful enemy. But the Chahamana king preferred a battle rather than any
disgraceful negotiation. he was fully supported by Simhabala, his maternal
uncle. While all these discussions were going on, the Hammira’s
messenger arrived in the Chahamana court. he was struck with wonder at the
power and splendour of the Chahamana king, and probably retired without
performing the task, entrusted to him.
Unfortunately
the drama ends here. it is, therefore, difficult to conjecture what happened
next. Prof. Kielhorn assumes that on this present occasion, Vigraharaja and the
Hammira , did not fight.[200]
But it seems otherwise, as the Hammira retired without demanding any
formal Chahamana surrender. Most probably there took place a clash in which the
Hammira could not fare well. This may be corroborated by the later
incidents. The Hammira’s failure must have encouraged Vigraharaja to
adopt a Vigorous offensive policy against the Muslims. In his third Delhi
Siwalik Pillar inscription of V.S. 1220 (= C. 1164 A.D.), he claims to have
repeatedly exterminated the Mlechchhas, i.e., the Muslims, and made Aryavarta
once more the abode of the Aryans.[201]
According to H.C. Ray[202]the
success of Vigraharaja was largely due to the declining power of the
Ghaznavites of the Punjab during the weak rule of Khasru Shah Muizzud-Daulah
(A.D. 1152-1160) and Khasrau Malik Taj-ud-Daulah (A.D. 1160-1186).
A Short
Estimate of Vigraharaja IV :
Vigraharaja IV holds a unique
position in Chahamana history. His reign was short, but eventful. By his great
generalship he spread his authority far and wide. Chaulukya Kumarapala had to
abandon his frontier principalities, and was not successful to recover them
till the death of the Chahamana ruler, The Guhilas of Mewar acknowledged
Chahamana supremacy. The Tomaras were annihilated, and Delhi and Hansi were
captured from them. The Muslims suffered repeated reverses. The third Delhi
Siwalik Pillar-inscription credits the Chahamana ruler with the conquest of the
whole region from the Himalayas to the Vindhyas. Although this credit may
appear exaggerated, yet we shall not be far wrong to assume that his reign
positively inaugurated the era of Chahamana imperialism.
Vigraharaja
IV also revived the tradition of such illustrious Paramara rulers, as Munja and
Bhoja, in war and peace. Along with the expansion of power, he went ahead with
a steady development of peaceful arts as well. He himself was a poet of repute,
and highly patronised art and culture for which he was known as Kavibandhava.[203]
He also took a keen interest in building beautiful and imposing works. Indeed,
by his military skill and patronage of learning, the Chahamana monarch
represented a real type of the successful medieval Rajput king.
In
short, Vigraharaja IV may be regarded as the greatest of the Chahamana rulers
in the Kingdom of Sakambhari.
APARAGANGEYA
:
Dynastic
Struggle and the reign of Prthviraja II :
The Prthvirajavijaya mentions that Vigraharaja
IV was succeeded by his son Aparagangeya.[204]
He had possiblya variant of his name
like Amaragangeya or Amargangu, as found in other works.[205]
He had a very short reign and possibly died unmarried.
After
him Prthvibhata or Prthviraja II, theson of parricide Jugadeva, came to the
Chahamana throne. This dynastic change may be well illustrated from the
following geneological table :
Queen Sudhava =
Arnoraja = Queen Kanchanadevi
(
C. 1135-1150 A.D.)
Jugadev Vigraharaja IV
Somesvara=Karpuradevi
(
C. 1153-1164 A.D. ) ( C. 1170-1177
A.D. )
Prthviraja II Aparagangeya Prthviraja III Hariraja
( C.1167-1170 A.D. ) ( No
Inscription ) ( C. 1177-1192 A.D.
)
It
appears that this dynastic change did not happen in a peaceful way. This is
corroborated by prthviraja II’s Dhod stone inscription of V.S. 1325 (C. 1169
A.D.), which mentions that he secured a victory over the ruler of Sakambhari by
the strength of his arms.[206]
Probably
there began a struggle for the throne between The two princes of the ruling
family, Aparagangeya and Prthviraja II. This ultimately led to the removal of
the former and the installation of the latter to the Chahamana throne.
Prthviraja II thus appears to have been able to recover the kingdom of his
father Jugadeva, who had lost it to Vigraharaja IV, father of Aparagangaya. In
this succession struggle Aparagangeya probably lost his life as well, for
nothing further was heard of him.
PRTHVIRAJA
II :
As many as four inscriptions of
Prthviraja II have been discovered, one at Hansi[207]
in the Punjab, and the three others at the Mewar region in Rajasthan – two at
Menal[208]
and one at Dhod.[209]
The first one is dated in V.S. 1224 (C. 1167 A.D.) and the last one in V.S.
1225 (C. 1170 A.D.). He had, therefore, a very short reign but it was important
on account of the gradual development of the Chahamana-Muslim conflict.
After
ascending the throne, he turned his attention against the Muslims of the
Punjab. The Hansi stone inscription mentions that the king’smaternal uncle
kilhana was placed in charge of the strategic fort of Asika in order to watch
over the activities of the Hammira who had become the cause of anxiety to the
world."[210]
D.R. Bhandarkar identifies Asika with Hansi.[211]
The
activities of the Hammira’s probably indicate that the Muslims, i.e. the
Ghaznavites of the Punjab, were trying to penetrate into interior India. Though
they had been successfully checked by Vigraharaja IV, yet during the time of
Prthviraja II they became the cause of anxiety to the Chahamana kingdom. It
seems that when Vigraharaja IV died and the ruling family was involved in a
succession struggle, the Muslim found an opportunity to intensity their
activities. But Prthviraja II equally rose to the occasion, and took immediate
steps to meet the situation. He appointed an efficient governor, named Kilhana,
to the strategic fort of Asika or Hansi to check the Muslim aggression. The
fort of Asi or Asika was the gateway to India. As colonel Tod observes,
“Asigarh or Asidurg is celebrated as the scene of contest between the Hindus
and early Muhammedans. It was by this route that most of Shahabuddin’s attempts
were made to wrest the throne of Hindu from Prthviraja and, often did the
warriors of the mountains of Kabul find their graves before Asi.........the
route was by Pacapattan...........on the Sutlaj, to Bhatner and Fatchabad to
Asi and Delhi.”[212]
Colonel
Tod appears to have confused Prthviraja II of the Hansi stone inscription of
V.S.1224 (=C.1168 A.D.) with the famous Chahamana ruler Prthviraja III (C.
117-1192 A.D.), who was defeated Shiabuddin Muhammad Ghuri at the second battle
of Tarain in 1192 A.D. Muhammad Ghuri established his power in the Punjab by
overthrowing the last Yamini prince Khusrau Malik Taj-ud-Daulah (1160-1186),
and from that base he attempted to penetrate further into India at the cost of
the Chahamanas. But Prthviraja II’s inscriptions clearly show that he died much
earlier (C. 1170 A.D.) before Muhammad Ghuri’s conquest of the Punjab. Further
the Bijolia inscription which was the earliest inscription of Somesvara, who succeeded
Prthviraja II, was issued towards the end of V.S. 1226 (=1170 A.D.).[213]
It is thus clear that Colonel Tod’s “Prthviraja”, who possessed the strategic
fort of Asior Hansi, was none but Prthviraja II of the Hansi inscription. His
observation, however, clearly implies the strategic position of the fort of
Hansi.
In
the Chahamana-Muslim conflict Kilhana proved a successful officer. The Hansi
stone inscription mentions that he not only checked the Muslim aggressions, but
also captured Panchapura from them.[214]Both
H.C.Ray and[215]
D.R. Bhandarkar[216]
identify Panchapura with Panhapattana on the Sutlej river. This is in agreement
with Tod’s assumption[217]
also. According to Ray if the identification is correct them Prthviraja II
achieved some success against the Yamini Prince Khusrau MalikTaj-ud-Daulah
(1160-1186), who was a mild and pleasure-seeking ruler.[218]
Kilhana thus justified the confidence reposed on him.
Another
incident during the reign of Prthviraja II is mentioned by the Bijolia
inscription. It states that the Chahamana monarch defeated a king named
Vastupala, and took away his beautiful elephant, called Mansidhi.[219]
But king Vastupala cannot be properly identified.
Both
Prthviraja II and his queen Suhavadevi were devout workshippers of Lord Siva.
The Dhod stone inscription mentions that the Chahamana king took the title of Paramabhattaraka
Paramesvara, and during his reign the temple of Nitya Pramoditadeva was
built by his feudatory Adhiraja Kumarapla.[220]
According to the Bijolia inscription the Chahamana king used to perform his
religious duties by granting gold and villages to the Brahamanas.[221]
The Menal stone inscription states that Maharajni Suhavadevi made an annual
grant of 20 drammas to the Siva-temple at Menal, bearing the name of the
god as Suhavesvara.[222]
Though Prthviraja II was a devout Saiva Hindu, yet he was not orthodox in his
religious outlook. This is well illustrated by his tolerant attitude to the
Jainas. The Bijolia inscription states that he granted the village Morajhari to
the Jaina temple of Parasvanatha.[223]
SOMESVARA :
HIS ACTIVITIES IN GUJARAT :
According to the Prthvirajavijaya since the
death of Arnoraja, his youngest son Somesvara was living in Gujarat enjoying
the patronage of Chaulukya Jayasimha.[224] The last years of Arnoraja’s reign were marked
withconspiracies and political intrigues which resulted in the murder of the
Chahamana king by his eldest son Jugadeva, a civil war in the royal family, and
the final occupation of the throne by Arnoraja’s second son Vigraharaja IV. It
was very likely that Chaulukya Jayasimha became anxious to save the life of his
grands on Somesvara (who was the son of his daughter Kanchanadevi) from the
disorderly state of affairs in Sakambhari. Hence soon after the murder of his
son-in-law Arnoraja, the Chaulukya monarch took away Somesvara to his own
kingdom in Gujarat. The next Chaulukya king Kumarapala continued to favour and
bring up the Chahamana prince in such a manner that his name Kumarapala, i.e.,
‘protector of Kumara’, really became significant.[225]
While
living in Gujarat, Somesvara participated in the Chaulukya campaign against
Konaha. In the Prthvirajavijaya he is said to have cut off with his own
hands the head of the king of that country.[226]
Merutunga, the chronicler of Gujarat, gives his name as Mallikarjuna, but
attributes all the credit of defeating and killing him to the Chaulukya general
Ambada.[227]
On the other hand, Hemachandra, the contemporary Jaina scholar, states that
some Chaulukya soldiers killed the ruler of Konkana.[228]
In other words, he did not give the credit to Ambada. On account of such
conflicting claims, it appears very difficult to say who actually achieved that
distinction. A greater reliability may, however, be placed upon the statement
of the Prthvirajavijaya. Whose authenticity is generally accepted on the
ground that the information supplied by other Chahamana sources (including
their inscriptions) more or less agrees with that found in the Prthvirajavijaya.
However, all these conflicting claims may be reconciled by assuming that
Somesvara along with the Chaulukya soldiers defeated and killed the ruler of
Konkana, and Ambada was the commander of the Chaulukya army in the whole
compain.
The
Prthvirajavijaya states that Somesvara while living in Gujarat, married
the daughter of one Achalaraja, the ruler of Tripuri.[229]
Achalaraja seems to be a Kalachuri prince, not properly identified.[230]
Jonaraja, the commentator, mentions the name of his daugher as Karpuradevi.[231]
By
Karpuradevi, Somesvara had two sons, names Prthviraja and Hariraja. Bothe of
these princes were born in Gujarat when Chahamana Vigraharaja IV was rulling in
Sakambhari. he became very much pleased with the birth of his nephews, and died
in peace.[232]
After
the death of Vigraharaja IV, the Sakambhari kingdom age in fell into disorder.
His son and successor Aparagangeya was involved in a succession struggle which
led to his defeat and death, and Prthviraja II, the nephew of Vigraharaja IV,
succeeded to the Chahamana throne in C. 1167 A.D.
Somesvara brought from Gujarat
to Sakambhari :
It appears that Somesvara had practically lost touch
with Sakambhari when Prthviraja II occupied the Chahamana throne. However,
Prthviraja II did not reign long. He died in C. 1170 A.D., and probably left no
issue to succeed him. The ministers of the Sakambhari kingdom, therefore,
brought back Somesvara from Gujarat, and placed him on the throne.[233]
As
many as five inscriptions of his reign have been discovered, one at Bijolia[234]
two at Dhod,[235]
one at Revasa,[236]
and one at Anvalda.[237]
The earliest is dated in V.S. 1226 and the latest in V.S. 1234, corresponding
roughly to 1170-1177 A.D. His reign was, therefore, not a long one, and he
certainly died before 1178 A.D. when we find his son prthviraja III ruling at
Sakambhari.[238]
It seems that Somesvara came to the throne at a fairly advanced age by spending
most of his time in the court of Gujarat.
Along
with these inscriptions, Somesvara had also some coins of ‘the Bull and
Horseman type.’ The obverse bears the figure of a horseman with the legend ‘Sri
Somesvaradeva’ and the reverse has the figue of humped bull and the legend Asavari
Sri Sama (ntadeva).[239]
During
the reign of Somesvara the Chahamana territory seems to have been extended in
the Mewar region in the south, where most of his inscriptions have been discovered.
The Bijolia inscription states that he took the title of Pratapa-Lankesvara,[240]
which means that he was as powerful as Ravana, the Lord of Lanka.
Somesvara
efficiently carried on the administration by establishing peace and order in
the kingdom. He was always anxious to get the help of his ministers in his
administration. The sanskrit work, the Viruddhavidhi-Vidhvamsa[241]
mentions two important ministers during his reign. They were Skanda and his
son Sodha. They were the Nagara Brahamanas of Anandanagara. According to N.C.
Ray the place Anandanagara was moder Vadnagara in Northern Gujarat.[242]
Most probably Skanda came to Sakambhari from Gujarat when Somesvara ascended
the Chahamana throne in order to assist him in administration. He was vastly
learned scholar, as well as an efficient general. He was placed in charge of
the very important post of Sandhi-Vigrahika (ministry of peace and war).
After him this post was given to his worthy son Sodha. Kadambavasa seems to be
another minister of Somesvara. He became the Chief Minister during the regency
of Karpuradevi when Prthviraja III succeeded his father Somesvara as a minor
son.[243]
Deterioration of his relation
withthe Chaulukyas :
The Prthviraja-Raso[244]
states that Somesvara was killed in a battle by Chaulukya Bhimadeva II (C.
1178-1241 A.D) This seems to be a more fiction, as Chahamana spigraphic
evidence clearly points out that Somesvara had died before 1178 A.D.[245]
when Bhimadeva II ascended the Chaulukya throne of Gujarat.[246]
But from the Chaulukya records it appears that during the reign of Kumarapala’s
successor Ajayapala, there took place a conflict between the Chaulukyas and the
Chahamanas in which the latter were defeated and had to acknowledge Chaulukya
supremacy. Thus according to the ‘Sukrta-Samkirtana’the king of
Sapadalaksa sent a silver pavilion to Chaulukya Ajayapala as a feudatory gift.’[247]
This is corroborated by the Kadi inscription (V.S. 1263) of Bhimadeva II which
mentions that Ajayapala exacted tribute from the ruler of Sapadalaksa.[248]
According to H.C.Ray this ruler of Sapadalaksa was none but Chahamana
Somesvara.[249]
We should, therefore, try to find out the reasons which led to the breakup of
the good relation that existed between the Chaulukyas and the Chahamana since
the days of Kumarapala and Somesvara.
Chaulukya
Kumarapala died in C. 1173 A.D. He had no son, and therefore, the problem of
succession became acute. The Kumarapalaprabandha[250]
states that Kumarapala had desired that his daughter’s son, Pratapamalla,
should succeed him. But before he could make any arrangement, Ajayapala, the
son of Kumarapala’s brother Mahipala, seized the Chaulukya throne of Gujarat by
putting and end of Kumarapala’s life by poison.
It
seems that Ajayapala’s usurpation of the Chaulukya throne by a heinous means
led to his conflict with Chahamana Somesvara. There were reasons for Somesvara
to remain grateful to Kumarapala who had brought him up in Gujarat and probably
helped him in recovering his paternal throns. So when Ajayapala murdered
Kumarapala and usurped the Chaulukya throne, Somesvara was naturally perturbed.
It seems that the Chahamana king probably invaded the Chaulukya kingdom in
order to punish Ajayapala. But the Chaulukya monarch proved to be too powerful
for the Chahamana king who had to acknowledge the Chaulukya supremacy by paying
tribute.
v v v
SECRETARIAT AND THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS
We shall survey in this chapter the organisation of
what in modern terminology might be conveniently called the Central Secretariat
and its various departments. Here also it may be noted that the records of our
period supply us no direct and detailed information about the machinery of the
central government; and hence it is difficult to say, how the secretariat and
its various departments were organised and how they used to function. The
records of our period merely give us a long list of officers, but they do not
throw much light upon their powers and functions. We can, however, form a
general idea of the secretariat and its different branches on the basis of the
list of officers, supplied by the records of the different dynasties of our
period. The contemporary Niti writers also help us a good deal in this respect.
The
success of administration depends largely upon the efficiency and ability of
the secretariat officer sand the accuracy with which they draft the orders of
the central government. Ancient Indian political writers have therefore advised
the king to take great care in the selection of the Secretariat officers. Sukra
states that the king should appoint officers in the secretariat only after
examining their fitness for the work.[251]
The Secretariat officers were also expected to be well trained and were
required to possess almost as high qualifications as ministers, as far as
ability and reliability were concerned. We have already seen in the last
chapter, how our Niti writers have attached great importance to the business of
the government being conducted in writing; the officers in the secretariat were
therefore expected to be expert in drafting.
Working of
the Secretariat :
The Secretariat was known as
Srikarana under the Chahamanas and Chaulukyas.[252]Its
head was usually a Mahamatya. It had a big record office, where official
documents were carefully kept. The account of Abdur Razak shows that the Diwankhana
of the Vijayanagar ministry was a big hall of 40 pillars with a gallery of 90’
x 18’ for accommodating the secretariat. [253]
We may presume that similar arrangements existed in our period. In its normal
work the secretariat had to deal with a considerable amount of correspondence.
It received the reports from the districts and replied to them. Sukra lays down
that daily monthly or periodical reports were to be submitted.[254]
The
secretariat had also its inspecting staff to control provincial and district
officers and find out whether its orders were being properly carried out or not
by the subordinates. The inspection machinary of the central government is but
rarely referred to in the records of our period; so far we have come across
only one such instance in Northern India during our period. The Partapgarh
inscription ofMahendrapala refers to a touring officer called Madhava
designated as Tantrapala.[255]
He is stated to have made a tour to Ujjayini to investigate certain matters as
desired by the king. It may be, however, added that the inspecting officers are
referred to in the Vakataka, Gupta and Chola records, Sukra also, while
recommending tours of inspection, observes that the king or the higher officers
should inspact the villages and towns in order to have a first hand information
about the real condition and feelings of their residents.[256]
The solitary reference to the inspection agency in our epigraphs may be
accidental. Administration is hardly possible without an efficient inspecting
machinary.
Our
records are usually land transfer documents, and they frequently refer to the
work of the secretariat in connection with land-grants. That some secretariate
used to keep duplicate copies of at least some land grants is suggested by the
epigraphical evidence. One Palimpsest plate, containing and original
inscription of the Rashtrakutas and a latter one of the Paramaras, has been found.[257]
It is plausible to suggest that the plate was obtained by the Paramaras, when
they looted the Rashtrakuta treasury at Malkhed. If such was the case, then it
may be permissible to conclude that office copies of some charters were kept in
some secretariats. The evidence however is very insufficient to arrive at a
definite conclusion.
Sometimes
the donees wanted to exchange the village granted to them earlier. Thus the
Nagpur Prasasti of the Paramara king Naravarman informs us that the king
donated three new villages in lieu of the two assigned earlier by his
predecessor.[258]
This must have been done after consulting the original charter.
Sometimes
when the letters of the grant used to became blurred due to lapse of time,
steps were taken to replace the charter by a new one. This was done by the
Chahamana king Ratnapala, when he renewed the grant of the village in the
Saptasata Vishaya, originally made by Maharaja Jindaraja to the Brahmana
residents in that village, as its letters became blurred due to lapse of time.[259]
The
central government used to take proper and immediate steps to annul fraudulent
grants. Sometimes government officers themselves went astray, took bribes and
issued false copper plates. When such things occurred, the central government
used to punish such officers. Thus in the Tarachandi inscription we find that
when an officer of the Gahadavala king Vijayachandra made a certain
unauthorised land grant to some Brahmanas after receiving from them some bribe,
the local ruler of Japila at once declared it to be fraudulent.[260]
Sometimes
owing to anarchy also the donees could not enjoy their full rights given to
them under the land grants; when however order was re-established, the land
grants were re-examined and renewed. The Barah Copper plate of the Pratihara
king Bhoja informs us that the possession of the village Valkagrahara, lying in
the Udumbara Vishaya of the Kalanjara Mandala, which had been originally
granted by Nagabhatta, was disturbed by the prevailing anarchy in the reign of
Ramabhadra. When sufficient evidence was adduced, the grant was renewed.[261]
From aother inscription of the same king we learn that the king Bhoja revived a
grant in the year 893 A.D. in Gurjaratra-bhumi, originally made by Vatsaraja
and later confirmed by Nagabhatta, but subsequently fallen into desuetude
during the time of Ramabhadra owing to anarchy.[262]
All these records clearly show how the central secretariat was very careful in
revenue transactions.
In
modern administration, the minister is an official different from the head of
his department; in ancient times; the two posts were ofte held by the same
individual. We often find an officer rising to the position of a minister. The
cases of Pratihara Gadadhara and Ananta rising to the ministerial position have
been already referred to. This procedure is in accordance with the practice
recommended by Sukra, according to whom the king should promote an officer
successively to higher positions leading ultimately to the post of a minister,
when he proves himself fully qualified and competent.[263]
Number of
Departments :
As regards the number of the
departments of the secretariat, there is no unanimity among the writers on
polity. The epics[264]
and the Arthasastra usually refer to eighteen departments;[265]
the latter however, shows their number was often increased by five or six if
necessary.[266]
According to Sukra, there should be twenty departments in the secretariat;[267]
supervised by the superintendents of elephants, horses, chariots, infantry,
cattle, camels, deer, birds, gold, jewels, silver, clothes, parks, buildings,
palaces, religion and charity. The records of our period, however, disclose
some further departments, which are referred to by neither the Smriti nor the
Niti writers. As it is difficult to enumerate them separately, we shall for the
sake of convenience group them under the different heads of administration.
Royal Household Department :
Monarchy being the normal form of government, we shall
at the outset discuss the royal household department. The royal palaces ad
buildings were[268]
in charge of an officer called Saudhagehadhipa by Sukra and Avasathika by Pala
inscriptions.[269]
Probably he might have had an assistant to issue permits to the intending
visitors. Under him worked Dvarapala,[270]
who used to check visitors’ entry into and exist from the palace premises. The
officer, who used to take the visitors to the royal presence,was know as Maha-Pratihar.[271]
His assistants were known as Pratiharas. The position of Mahapratihara was
similar to that of the modern aid-de-camp. Besides having a fine personality,
he was expected to possess tact, charmad suavity.[272]
Mahapratiharas were assisted by Vetradharas, who used to instruct the visitors
in the formality of the proper department. The king was always guarded by his
body-guards designated as Angarakshkas by Pala inscriptions[273]
and Anganiguhakas by Chaulukya records.[274]
Maharajaguru
or the royal preceptor is the next officer that we have to consider. He figures
frequently in our records. In the Khajuraho inscription, Vasavachandra appears
as Maharajaguru of the Chandella king Dhanga.[275]
Being a very learned man, he was sometimes asked to compose the copper plate
grants; probably it was thought that he would compose the melegantly. Thus
under the Paramaras, the Bhopal plates of 1214 and 1215 A.D. were both composed
by Rajaguru Madana with the consent of Mahasandhi—vigrahikas Rajasalana and
Bilhana.[276]
Sometimes he used to act as a witness, when the king made a land grant. For
instance, when the Paramara king Devaraja made a grant in V.S. 1059, the
witness was his Guru Matvaka.[277]
Sometime the duties of the royal priest and preceptor were combined in the same
person. In the Kamauli grant king Jayachandra is stated to have granted the
village of Osia to his Mahapurohita, who was also his royal preceptor.[278]
Besides
the royal preceptor there was also a royal physician in the king’s court. He
has been called Bhishak[279]
in the Gahadavala records and Antaranga[280]
in the Sena ones. Lakshmidhara describes him as Vaidya.[281]
He was expected to be well grounded in the eight branches of the medical
science.
The
‘science’ of astrology had become well-established during our period and we
find the king’s court usually having a court astrologer. he was called
Naimittika[282]
under the Gahadavalas, and Jyotshi[283]
under the Chahamanas and Mahamauhurtika under the Chaulukyas. Lakshmidhara
calls him Rigu,[284]
a word whose derivation is difficult to make out. He was not only expected to
be a master of omens but also of medicine. It may be noted that even in modern
times Ayurvedic physicians often start their treatment after satisfying
themselves that the day is auspicious. Justas we now sometimes have physicians
– cum—astrologers, in the past, there were probablyastrologers-cum-physicians,
Being a learned man, he was sometimes entrusted with the drafting of the land
grants. The Delhi Siwalik pillar inscription of the Chahamana king Visaladeva
was written by the astrologer according to the orders of the king.[285]
Since
very early times, the royal courts used to have their own poet laureates. The
practice was continued during our period also. Under the Chandellas, they were
often given the title Kavichakravarti. The Khajuraho inscription of the
Chandella king Dhanga refers to Kavichakravarti Nandana.[286]
The
internal management of the royal palace was looked after by several officers.
Sambharapa was one of them;[287]
his duty was to keep a proper stock of the things necessary for the maintenance
of the royal household. Under him worked the superintendent of kitchen,[288]
who had to take particular precaution to see that no attempt was made to poison
the king.
The
royal harem was put in charge of an officer designated by Sukra as Antahapurayogyapurusha.[289]
Lakshmidhara calls him Antahpuradhyaksha.[290]
He was to be sexless, truthful and sweet-tongued. The officer called Sayyapala,[291]
mentioned only in the Chaulukya records, was probably in charge of the king’s
bed; he must have worked under the Antahapuradhipa. Besides him there were also
maid-servants or Paricharikas, working in the inner apartments. They were
expected to be skilful in serving and to take part in the diverse work of the
royal harem allotted to them.
MILITARY DEPARTMENT :
We shall now consider the different departments of the
state administration. Among these the military department was the most
important one. The commander-in-chief, who was in charge of this department,
was known by different designations under different dynasties. The Gahadavala[292]
and the Paramara[293]
records call him by the simple name Senapati, while those of the Palas[294]
and Senas[295]
give him the more high sounding title of Mahasenapati. The title Kampanadhipati
was in use in Kashmir.[296]
The commander-in-chief was usually a member of the ministry also, as shown in
the last chapter. His duty was to organise the fighting forces and to maintain
them at maximum efficiency.
The
Senapati was assisted in his work by a number of subordinate military officers.
The fighting force during our period had three main arms; infantry, cavalry,
and elephant corps – each being in charge of one separate commander. The Pala
kingdom, which had the sea coast, had a naval arm as well We do not know
whether the Chaulukyas maintained a navy to protect their coast.
The
superintendent of infanty was probably called Baladhipa[297]
under the Chahamanas and Baladhyaksha under the Palas.[298]
He had under him a number of officers of lower rank, who are referred to by
Sukra. The Pattipala[299]
was the lowest among them; he was in charge of five or six foot soldiers and
corresponded to a modern lance Naik. The next officer, called Gaulmika[300]
was in charge of thirty foot soldiers according to Sukra; he corresponded
to the modern Jamadar. he appears in the Pala and Sena records also, but
unfortunately they do not throw any light upon his functions. R.C. Majumdar
suggests that Gaulmika was an officer in charge of a military squadron called
Gulma consisting of nine elephants, nine chariots, twenty-seven horses and
forty-five foot soldiers.[301]
U.N. Ghoshal takes him to be a collector of customs duties and refers to the
term Gulmadeya[302]
used in the Arthasastra in the
sense of dues paid at the military or the police stations. While justifying his
interpretation, he points out that in the Pala records, Saulkika is immediately
followed by Gaulmika and hence he must be an officer connected with the revenue
department.
R.C.Majumdar,
however, does not agree with U.N.Ghoshal and he, while criticising the latter’s
view, argues that in the Sena records, Gaulmika immediately follows the
military officers and hence he mustbe a member of that category. It is
difficult to say which of the above views is correct, for neither in the Pala
records nor in the Sena’s spigraphs are the functions of Gaulmika referred to
any-where. It would appear that the functions of the Gaulmika may have differed
in different administrations. However, it may be pointed out that R.C.
Majumdar’s view is supported by Sukra, who definitely states that he was a
military officer.[303]
The
next higher officer mentioned by Sukra is Satanika.[304]
He was the head of one hundred foot-soldiers. He was expected to be
well-grounded in the art of warfare and its different tactics. His duty was to
train the soldiers both in the morning and evening and supervise military
parades. he was assisted in his work by an officer called Anusatika,[305]
who was also of the same rank as that of Satanika.
The next
higher officers referred to by Sukra were Sahasrika[306]
and Ayutika[307] in
charge of a thousand and ten thousand foot soldiers respectively.
The
bow, the spear and the sword were the main weapons of the age and soldiers used
to fight generally with them. Lakshmidhara, while describing the army, refers
to Dhanurdharis and Khadgadharis.[308]
The swordsman and the bowman had to fight sometimes on foot and sometimes from
the back of the horse or the elephant. Lakshmidhara therefore insists that
swordsmen and bow-men should be able to manage the horse as well as the
elephant. Probably the same was expected of the spearmen, though they are not
referred to in this connection in the Rajadharma Kanda of Krityakalpataru.
Among the minor weapons of the army referred to in the Manasollasa
(II. 681-83) may be mentioned clubs (Mudgara), battleaxes, knives, tridents
and machines to throw missiles. The work also refers to sellachakra, whose
nature is not clear. Sukra refers to fire arms and artillery (IV, 7,213) but
these passages are later than our period, as already pointed out. There is no
evidence so far forthcoming to show that fire-arms were used by the Hindus
before C. 1370 A.D.
The
superintendent of cavalry is called Asvapati[309]
by Sukra. He was to be adept in military parades and was expected to know how
to guide, train and treat the horse. Mahasadhanika mentioned in some Chaulukya
records[310]
and Mahasvasadhanika[311]
figuring in some Chedi inscriptions were the designations of cavalry officers
working under Asvapati. Sahani[312]
of the Chahamana epigraphs was perhaps the master of stables.
The
Mahasadhanika appears to have been an important officer, for sometimes he is
seen enjoying the revenues of a town or a village without the power of
alienation. Thus Asni, the wife of Mahasadhnika Mahaika, owned a plot of land
in Semvalapuraka Grama, which was enjoyed by her husband, but she had to
supplicate for the permission of the Paramara king Vakpatiraja[313]
when she wanted to alienate a portion of it.
The
superintendent of the elephant corps was designated as Mahapilupati[314]
by the Sena records and Pilupati[315]
by the Pala ones. Sukra describes him as Gajapati.[316]
He was expected to have the knowledge of differentiating the three kinds of
elephants and also of nourishing them properly; when they were ill, he was to
make adequate arrangements to treat them. The officer called Nayaka,[317]
who used to be in charge of twenty elephants, worked under him.
The
superintendent of chariots does not appear in the records of our dynasties
under survey, probably because the chariot corps had ceased to be a part of the
fighting force. But it appears that the army still used to require some
chariots, probably for the use of high official on ceremonial occasions. It
therefore had a chariot superintendent. Sukra calls him Rathadhyaksha[318]
and states that he should be skilled in moving, turning and controlling the
chariots. He was also expected to know how to manufacture strong and durable
chariots.
The
officer called Mahavyuhapati[319]
who is referred to only in the Pala and Sena inscriptions, was one of the
highest officersof the military department. His position was similar to that of
the chief of the military staff in modern times. Unfortunately the precise
nature of his work is not descrived any where in inscriptions, but there is no
doubt that he had to study the different kinds of battle arrays, which formed
an important part in military strategy.
The
officer called Mahaganastha,[320]
appearing in the Sena records was probably a military officer, for according to
Sukra Gana denotes a body of troops consisting of 27 chariots, as many
elephants, 81 horses and 135 foot. Unfortunately we are not in a position to
ascertain how and what functions this officer used to discharge, for the
inscriptions throw no light upon the point.
Forts
as units of defence were very important in our age, and the army had to supply
the personnel for their garrison. Each fort was in charge of a capable and
experienced officer. He was known as Kottapala[321]
under the Pratiharas. Sukra calls him Durgadhyaksha.
The
warden of the marches called Maryadadhurya[322]
by the Pratihara and Prantapala by the Pala records was an important military
officer. His duty was to watch over the frontier and to prevent undesirable or
hostile persons from entering the kingdom. In Kashmir, he was known as
Dvarapala, He worked in close cooperation with the superintendents of forts in
his vicinity.
Sometimes
government used to appoint the same individual in charge of a fort and the
adjoining frontier. Thus under the Pratihara dynasty, Gwalior, which was a very
important fort, had only one officer, who was discharging the duties of both
the Kottapala and Maryadadhurya[323].
This would have happened only when one officer was found efficient enough
to discharge both the duties.
The
military department had its own store of weapons. Under the Imperial Guptas,
there used to be a separate office called Ranabhandagaradhikarana, which
was in charge of the stores and weapons. Whether such an office existed during
our period also, we do not know, for there are no references to it in any of
the records of our dynasties. It is, however, natural to assume that a separate
officer was put in charge of stores of weapons during our period also, though
he is not mentioned in the inscriptions.
The
military department also looked after the distribution of the army in the
different territories. It is important to note that as the means of
communications were poor, the big empires in ancient India used to have
battalions of their army stationed in the different directions, Thus under the
Pratiharas, we find that there was a southern army to watch over the
Rashtrakutas, an eastern army to check the Palas and a western army to oppose
the Muslims.[324]
Not only in the North but in the South also during our period of survey there
were provincial head-quarters for the army. It is interesting to note that even
today our army has its different commands like the southern, the northern and
the eastern ones.
Most
of the kingdoms of our period were land bound and hence had no navy. The Palas
and the Senas, however, were maritime powers, and we find them maintaining a
navy. Their records frequently refer to navy or naubala.[325]
The officer known as Nakadhyaksha also appears in the Pala records; according
to R.C.Majumdar this title is a corrupt form ofNavadhyaksha or Naukadhyaksha.[326]
It is not possible to say how the navy was organised and how its administration
was carried on, as both the literary and epigraphical sources are silent on the
point.
FOREIGN
DEPARTMENT :
The Foreign Department was another
important department at the centre. The minister in its charge is generally
called Mahasandhivigrahika in the records of our period. There were a
number ofsubordinate officers in the foreign department to help the foreign
ministerwhose work, as we have already seen in the last chapter, was very
heavy, as he had to look after the feudatories and neighbouring powers. His
work in connection with the former has been described in an interesting manner
by somesvara in the Manasollasa (II.128). He was to summon the different
feudatories at proper time to have discussions with them and then to dismiss
them.
The
officer called Mahamudradhikrita appearing in the Sena records probably
worked in this department.[327]
His duty was probably togrant passports to foreigners for entering the country.
The Pala records refer to another officer called Dutapreshanika.[328]
Who seems to have been in charge of the dispatch of the envoys to other states
on diplomatic business. The next officer concerned with this department was
Gamagamika.[329]
Gamagamika literally means one, who comes and goes. It is also not unlikely, as
suggested by U.N. Ghoshal, that he would have been carrying out functions of an
urgent character in connection with the diplomatic department of the state,
requiring frequent visits to the neighbouring kingdoms or to the dominions of
vassals.
POLICE
DEPARTMENT :
The police department may be
conventently considered at this point. Unfortunately the records of our period
do not clearly distinguish between the police and military officers. It is
likely that Dandanayakas of our period were both military and police officers.
Sometimes the military officers did the duty of the police officers and
vice-versa. They had a number of subordinate officers like Dandapasikas,
Chauroddharanikas, Dandikas, Dandasaktis, Chatas and Bhatas, who are frequently
referred to in our records.
The
Dandapasika,[330]
who is referred to only by the Pala and Sena records, was probably of the
status of the modern district superintendent of police. As his designation
indicates, his duty was to catch the thieves. Sometimes he was entrusted with
the important work of discharging the functions of a Dutaka[331]
in connection with the delivery of a land-grant.
The
Chauroddharanikas[332]
were mainly concerned with the detection of thefts and the punishment of the
concerned thieves. The Kalavan plates of Yasovarman refer to an officer called
Chaurika, but he was probably not different from Chauroddharanika.
The
duty of the officer called Dasaparadhika[333]
was most probably to collect fines for the ten traditional criminal
offences. Some of these crimes were serious like murder, adultery, abortion,
etc., while others were relatively lighter like defamation, obscene speech,
etc.
Dandasakti
and Dandika figure only in the Chahamana records. R.C. Majumdar[334]
is of opinion that Dandasakti was responsible for his duties to the military
department, but this view does not seem to be a convincing one. The Dandasakti
may as well have been in charge of the execution of punishment imposed upon
criminals.
The
functions of the officer called Mahadauhasadhasadhinika[335]
are difficult to determine. Most probably officers of this cadre were
entrusted with specially difficult tasks, The Jabalpur plates of the Chedi king
jayasimhadeva refers to an officer called Dushtasadhya;[336]
he is probably the same as Dauhasadhasadhanika.
The
state in ancient India controlled the institution of prostitution since very
early times and it is not unlikely that the officer entrusted with this work,
who is called Ganikadhyaksha by Kautilya, worked under the police
department. It was his duty to have full information about the persons who used
to visit prostitute. This was often useful to detect persons who were of bad
character and to watch their movements and activities. Very probably these
officers worked under police department; it is however not improbable that in
cities they may have worked under city superintendents.
The
functions of the officer called Khola[337]
have not yet been correctly ascertained. The meaning of this term, as revealed
by Sanskrit dictionaries, is a lame person it can hadly have any thing to do
with this officer. If the term is connected with Khala (wicked person), he
would be an officer working under the police department, if it is connected
with Khalaka, he would be an officer under the revenue department.
REVENUE DEPARTMENT :
The revenue department was in charge of the income of
the state from taxes and state properties and concerns. Lakshmidhara in his Krityakalpataru
mentions an officer called Aksharakshita,[338]
who had to keep a comprehensive account of income and expenditure of the state.
He must have been the right hand man of the revenue minister. As we have
already seen in the last chapter, the revenue department had to supervise the
collection of taxes and revenues, which were usually paid partly in kind and
partly in cash. It is therefore but natural that his office had to make
elaborate arrangements for the proper administration of government granaries.
He was probably keeping the duplicate copies of the land grants; for sometimes
it so happened that people showed forged charters in their own names. When such
frauds took place, the revenue department used to consult the original
documents and arrive at a decision about the genuineness of the disputed
records. The steps taken by the government in this connection have been already
referred to earlier.
The
revenue department had a large number of officers. The Mahakshapatalika, who
was in charge of records, was an important one among them. During our period of
survey, he is often seen composing copper plate charters. Thus Mahakshapatalika
Thakkura Vosarin,[339]
Mahakshapatalika Thakkura Kumyara,[340]
Mahakshapatalika Thakkura Govinda[341]
and Akshapatalika Kayastha Somasinhadeva[342]
were the writer soft he different documents known as Kadi platesof the
Chaulukya king Bhim II. The writer of the Lucknow Museum plate of the
Gahadavala king Jayachandradeva was Akshapatalika Sripati,[343]
While that of the Sunak grant of the Chedi king Karnadeva was Akshapatalika
Kekkaka.[344]
We have already seen in the last chapter that in some administrations, the Sandhivigrahika
was also doing this duty. It is not unlikely That the historical part of
the grant was drafted by the Sandhivigrahika and the details about land and
taxes were supplied by Akshapatalika. For convenience sake, drafting of the
document, though done by two persons, might have been ascribed to one of them.
The
next officer of this department, who was in charge of collecting the revenue,
was known as Mahakaranika under the Chedis.[345]
He and his assistants Karanikas were stationed in the different provinces,
towns and cities. The Karnikas are sometimes seen as the writers of copper
plate charters. Thus the writer of the Gohrwa grant of the Chedi king Karna was
the Karanika Sarvananda.[346]
Karanika Dhira was the writer of the Bihari stone inscription of the Chedi king
Yuvaraja I. [347]
Karanika Jaddha was the writer of the Khajuraho inscription of the Chandella
king Dhanga.[348]
Karanika Srisakti was the writer of the Bayana inscription of Chitralekha.[349]
Sometimes the post of Karikas used to be hereditary.
It is
important to note that in Maharashtra, the village revenue officer was till
recently known as Kulkarni – a name derived from Kula-karanika – i.e. an
officer in charge of the land revenues of different families in a village.
The
Chedi records refer to another officer called Mahapramata,[350]
who was probably assisted by an officer known as Pramatri[351]
under the Palas and Senas. The functions of both these officers are difficult
to determine. Some scholars take them to be judicial officers in charge of
recording evidence, whileothers take them to be judges concerned with civil
cases only.[352]
Both those conjectures, however, do not seem to be probable. The term Pramatri
is derived from the root ma to measure. Pramatri therefore should be
taken as a land measuring officer working under the Mahakshapatalika. He was
thus similar to the Rajjukas of Asokan inscriptions. The Jabalpur grant of the
Chedi king Jayasimhadeva refers to an officer called Pramattavara.[353]
The term may be a Prakrit derivative from Pramatri.
Another
officer of the revene department was Kshetrapa.[354]
His function is difficult to determine;it is not improbable that he might have
been in charge of some matters concerning cultivated lands. Probably he was
keeping an account of every holding paying taxes to the king, and as such his
activities were correlated to those of the Mahakshapatalika and his staff. He
figures only in the Pala inscriptions.
The
Pala records mention an officer called Shashthadhikrita.[355]
We have no information about his jurisdiction. Whether he was a Taluka or
district officer, we do not know. Most probably he worked under the revenue
department. Land tax was traditionally to be one sixth of the produce and so
the officer Shashthadhikrita might have been in charge of collecting it from
the cultivators.
Besides
the Shashthadhikrita, there was another officer called Bhogapati,[356]
who probably collected the tax known as Bhoga, which was most probably a
periodical supply of fuel, fruits, firewoods, flowers and the like, which the
villagers had to furnish to the king. This officer is called Mahabhogika[357]
in the Sena records.
The
term Bhoktri abbreviated into Bho was often used to denote a certain class of
officers in Rajasthan under the Chahamanas.[358]
They had often octroi dues assigned to them. Whether they were the same as
Bhogapatis, it is difficult to say.
Taxes,
as we already know, were paid both in kind and cash during our period. Tax in
cash was called Hiranya under the Palas and the Senas and it was perhaps levied
upon certain special kinds of crops. The officer, who was entrusted with the
work of collecting taxes in cash, was known as Hiranyasamudayika in
Bengal.[359]
Cattle-breeding
was an important element in the economic life and the state did not neglect it.
The officer, who was in charge of the herds, was known as Gokulika[360]
in the Paramara and Gahadavala kingdoms, Sukra also refers to officers in
charge of camels, cattle, deer and birds; [361]
They were expected to be skilled in breeding and rearing them.
Royal
parks and forests were an important item of state property. The superintendent
of parks was known as Aramadhipati.[362]
One of his dutis was to develop the resources by supplying proper manure at the
suitable time. He was also expected to know the medicinal properties of the
trees and plants. The forests also had a superintendent, though he does not
figure in our records. He had a suitable staff to assist him.
TREASURY
DEPARTMENT :
The treasury department was in charge of a
superintendent, who is called Koshadhyaksha both by Kautilya[363]
and Sukra.[364]
Paramara records call him Koshadhikari. He was expected to be well-versed in
financial administration. The work of this department was onerous; it had to
look after the government balance in kind and cash and to keep in in safe
custody. It naturally engaged a number of officers. Among them the
superintendent of granary, who is called Dhayadhyaksha[365]
by Sukra, was the most important one.Gahadevala inscriptions refer to him as Bhandagaradhikrita.[366]
His duty was to store properly the corn collected as tax in the government
granaryand to replace it periodically by new stock. He was expected to know how
to store corn and how to dispose it off at profit at suitable time.
FINANCE DEPARTMENT :
Unfortunately there is hardly any
reference to the finance department in the records of the dynasties surveyed by
us. In the Chaulukya administration only, we come across an officer in charge
of the expenditure known as Vyayakaranamahamatya,[367]
who probably belonged to this department. It is very likely that the work
of this department was being discharged by the treasury department and hence
there are no frequent references to the officers of finance. The superintendent
of treasury himself would have looked after the allotment of revenue and
expenditure of the state. In this connection, it may be noted that the Smritis
also rarely refer to the officers working under the finance department.
COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT :
There were several officers
working under this department. The first among them was the superintendent of
markets; he was called Drangika[368]
in Kathiawad and Hattapati in Bengal. According to Kautilya, his duty was to
fix the rates of different articles and to put the government products in the
market under favourable condition. He also organised imports of goods required
in the locality and supervised their sales at reasonable rates.[369]
Another
officer, who worked under this department, was the toll superintendent, who is
designated as Saulkika[370]
in the Pala records. He was to collect the octroi duties from the merchants at
the gate of a town before they imported their articles for sale.
The
third officer working under this department was Tarika or Tarapati.[371]
He figures only in the Pala records. He was probably in charge of ferry
service. He had also to look after the construction of ferries, their repairs
and upkeep.
Mining,
spinning, weaving and Jewelry-making seem to have been the principal industries
of the age. The state paid great attention to the mining industry, as the mines
produced a large part of the wealth of the country. The superintendent of mines
is called Akaradhipati[372]
in the Gahadavala records. His duties must have been similar to those described
in the Arthasastra, i.e. to exploit the resources of existing mines and
to carry out operations, which might lead to the discovery of new ones.
Cloth
industry was another flourishing industry of our period, and government took
keen interest in it. The superintendent of this department is designated as Sutradhyaksha
by Kautilya and Vastradhipa by Sukra.[373]
He was expected to have the knowledge of the finances and roughness of texture
of the cotton, woolen and silken cloth as well as of their durability.
According to Kautilya, the employees of this department used to send cotton to
the homes of weak and destitute persons and get the yarn spun through them at
agreed rates;[374]
whether this was being done in our period, we do not know.
Sometimes,
the state used to give licence to goldsmiths for the manufacture of silver and
golden wares and ornaments. The officer, who was entrusted with this work, is
called by Sukra as Suvarnadhyaksha. He was expected to have the
knowledge of distinguishing the values of different metals by their weight,
luster and colour.
Slaughter
houses were also under strict state control, their superintendent is called
Saunika[375]
in the Pala records. According to Kautilya, it was the duty of this officer to
prevent the outsiders from killing the animals in the game forests. How he discharged
his duty during our period, we do not know.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT :
The administration of justice was also carried on with
the help of a number of officers. The king was at the head of this department
and the administered justice, when he was present at the capital. If, however,
due to ill health or the pressure of other work, he was unable to discharge
this duty, the chief justice or Pradvivaka presided over the court at the
capital. It is rather strange that the record of the dynasties under consideration
do not refer to him. The non-mention of his office may be accidental.
The
chief justice was assisted in hiswork by a number of judges known as Mahadharmadhyakshas
[376]
under the Senas and probably Dharmapradhanas[377]
under the Chedis. It is difficult to say whether the Dharmalekhins,[378]
who figure in the Chandella and Chedi records, were the pleaders, who wrote
the complaints or judicial officers, who wrote the judgments. Probably they
were state judicial officers, since they are sometimes seen as drafting the
copper plate charters. Thus under the Chandellas, the writer of the Banda plate
of Madanavarman was the Darmalekhi Dasisudha,[379]
and that of the Semra plate was the Dharmlekhi[380]
Prithvidhara. The writer of the Pacher plate of the Chandella king Paramardi
was Dharmalekhi Shubhananda[381]
and of Mahoba plate was Dharmalekhi Prithvidhara.[382]
The writer of the Kharha grant of the Chedi king Yasakarna was the Dharmalekhi
Vacchuka.[383]
The
chief justice used to have his own office in charge of an officer named as Mahadharmadhikaranika
under the Chedis.[384]
He was probably in charge of the records of the office, where all documents
concerning important cases were kept. The officer called Dasaparadhika,[385]
who collected fines imposed upon criminals, probably worked under the chief
justice or his assistants.
The
judicial department probably looked after the management of jails also. The
epigraphs of our period, however, do not refer to the jail officer and hence we
do not know how he used to function. The non-mention of the jail officer may be
probably due to the fact that imprisonment was only one of the ten modes of
punishment in our period.
ECCLESIASTICAL DEPARTMENT :
The last department that we have to consider is the
ecclesiastical department, which was in charge of an officer called Pandita by
Sukra. An officer with this title does not figure at all in any of the records
of the dynasties under consideration; it is unlikely that his function might
have been discharged by the Purohita or Rajaguru, who figures in some of our
records. His duty as we have already seen, was to advise the king in religious
matters. He must have been assisted in his work by a number of subordinate
officers, though they do not appear in our records. Their duty was to supervise
all religions and sects. These officers were called Dharmamahamatras under
the Mauryas, Vinayasthitisthapakas under the Guptas and Dharmankusas
under the Rashtrakutas.
The
superintendent of religious establishments, institutions and charities is
described as Danadhyaksha by Sukra.[386]
It is very likely that the donation made on the recommendation of this officer
to the Brahmanas and temples would have been utilised by them in organising
schools, colleges, hospitals and poor-houses. The officer called Dharmadhikarin
appearing in the Chedi records probably discharged similar functions.[387]
An
officer called Agraharika, appearing in the Chahamana records, might have
worked under this department. He probably looked after the administration of
the villages granted to temples and Brahmanas. It was his duty to see that
there were no difficulties created in the enjoyment of grants given to the
donees.
OFFICIALS- FEUDATORIES-TERRITORIAL UNITS
(A) OFFICIALS OFTHE STATE :
The Chahamana records of
Sakambhari mention some other officials who were entrusted with specific duties
in the administration. The following were the most important of them;
Pratihara :
The Pratihara was the royal
chamberlain who used to hold a prominent place in the administrative framework
in the early medieval Indian states. It was his duty to bring the visitors into
the presence of the king. In the Sakambhari kingdom the term is mentioned in
the drama, Lalitavigraharaja[388]
and the Sanskrit Kavya, Prthvirajavijaya.[389]
Duta :
He was the envoy or political
agent of the king for communicating royal messages and orders. He thus appears
to hold an important position in the administration. Hasan Nizami mentions that
on the eve of the second battle of Tarain, Chahamana Prthviraja III sent such
an envoy to Muhammad Ghuri asking him to retire or face the consequences of the
battle.[390]
Spies :
The Chahamana rulers seem to have
maintained spies for getting first-hand information of the activities of their
rivals and enemies. The drama, Lalita-vigraharaja, mentions that
Vigraharaja IV sent his spy to the Muslim camp in order to ascertain of their
strength and stragic position.[391]
Juotishika :
The Delhi Siwalik pillar inscription was composed in
the presence of the Jyotishika (astrologer), Sri Tilakaraja, to
commemorate the victory of vigraharaja IV over the Muslim.[392]
It thus appears that a royal astrologer was maintained at the court of the
Chahamanas. It was his duty to forecast auspicious moments by reading about the
effects of stars and planets. After his advice, the king probably undertook all
his important assignments, especially his military campaigns. It seems,
therefore, that the astrologer was a very influential person in the Chahamana
court. This is also indicated in the Delhi Siwalik pillar inscription, which
mentions the term ‘illustrious’ to astrologer Tilakaraja.[393]
Karanikas :
The Karanikas, mentioned in the Chahamana
inscriptions, appear to have been connected with the revenue administration of
the kingdom. As the name signifies, they were probably the clerical officers,
engaged to write the documents of the land grants of the king. From the Dhod
stone inscription of Somesvara it appears that the post of the Karanikas was
an important one, which was served by the Brahmins as well.[394]
Gauda-Kayasthas :
The Chahamana inscriptions were also composed by
another class of people, called the Gauda-Kayasthas. They were mainly engaged
for writing royal prasasti in the inscriptions on important occasions.[395]
(B) FEUDATORIES:
The feudatory chiefs under the Chahamana sovereign seem
to have played on important role in the kingdom. Whenever required, they
rendered military help to the king, and personally accompanied him in battle.
According to Firishta one hundred and fifty chiefs joined Prthviraja III in his
second campaign against Muhammad Ghuri.[396]
Govindaraja of Delhi personally took part in the two battles of Tarain, and was
killed in the second battle.
The
feudatories also participated in peaceful activities as well. The Dhod stone
inscription mentions that the temple of Nityapramoditadava was constructed by
the feudatory of Prthviraja II.[397]
The
Chahamana inscriptions mention different titles, assumed by these feudatories,
like Duhsadhya,[398]
Thakura,[399]
Adhiraja,[400]
Maham[401]etc.
But as these titles were simply mentioned without any proper explanation, it is
neither possible to differentiate them from each other, nor to assess their
exact status. However, it appears that Dandhuka, who assumed the title of
Duhsadhya was a very important feudatory chief. The Harsha stone inscription
call him ‘illustrious’.[402]
Further, along with king Simharaja and the royal family, he also donated the
village of Mayyrapadra to the temple of Harsha.[403]
But
these feudatory chiefs had to acknowledge the suzerainty of the king, and could
do nothing independently. Even the ‘illustrious’Dandhuka had to seem the
permission of his overlord for simply donating his personal property (which he
had received from the king) to the temple of Harsha.
The
Chahamana territory of Sakambhari was designated as the ‘Sapadalaksa’[404]
country. It was under the direct rule of the king. For the sake of
administrative convenience, it was divided and sub-divided into smaller units.
In the
early stage of Chahamana administration, we do not find the well-known terms of
early medieval India, like bhuktia, bhumis or mandalas, representing
provinces in which the kingdom was usually divided. Instead, the Harsha stone
inscription mentions only visayas[405]
or districts. It seems that the Sakambhari kingdom was not big enough to he
divided into provinces. It was small in area, simply divided into a number of visayas,
and such Visaya consisting of several villages. Some villages were,
however, organised into a group or union. The Harsha stone inscription mentions
one such group of twelve villages –the Tunakupaka-dvadasaka in the
pattabaddhaka – visaya.[406]
But
with the enlargement of the Sakambhari kingdom, need was felt for a proper
territorial division. Hence the term Mandala or province comes into
existence, which was placed under the charge of a governor, known as Mandalesvara.
Kadambavasa, the chief minister of Prthviraja III, was such a Mandalesvara.[407]
It
seems that the enlarged Sakambhari kingdom was probably divided into a number
of such mandalas or provinces. Each province consisted of several
districts, and each district was sub-divided into a number of villages. The
village formed the smallest unit of administration.
It
is interesting to note that Prthviraja III’s Revasa stone inscription of V.S.
1243 (= C. 1188 A.D.) mentions some Chandels of Khaluvana village in the
Chandel pratiganaka.[408]
According to D. Sharma, the term Pratiganaka, was somewhat
equivalent to a Paragana of the Mughal period.[409]
If that is so, then a pratiganaka must have comprised a number of
villages. In other words, the former village unions probably took a definite
name in the later period of the Chahamanas.
JUDICIAL, MILITARY AND REVENUE
ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION :
Due to the paucity of materials it is really very
difficult to say anything definite about the judicial administration of the
Chahamanas of Sakambhari. Some stray references are scattered here and there
from which a mere idea may be gleaned of their judiciary.
The
king was probably the highest court of appeal. This will be evident from the Kharataragachchhapattavali
which mentions that the Sarvadhikarin of Prthviraja III, in the
absence of the king, presided over a religious dispute at Narayana, and give
impartial justice with the help of the Panditas,[410]
The Sarvadhikarin thus appears to hold the next position after the king for
delivering justice in a dispute. He, therefore, might have held the position of
the chief justice of the state. The panditas seem to be the learned Brahmanas, well-versed
in Dharmasastras, the apparently they had some influence in the judicial
administration.
MILITARY ADMINISTRATION :
The fall of the Pratihara Empire was followed by the
rise of more than half a dozen local Rajput dynasties, engaged in continual
struggles among themselves. These warring principalities were each actuated by
the ambition of securing for itself an imperial authority, as achieved by the
Pratiharas. Further, all these inter-dynastic struggles were going on at a time
when the Muslims were knocking at the gate of India. hence an atmosphere of
continuous warfare prevailed in North India in early medieval period of Indian
history.
The
Chahamana Rajputs of Sakambhari were no exception to the rule. After the period
of independence and consolidation, they were also inspired with the ideal of
imperial authority. Arnoraja assumed the title of Maharajadhiraja-Paramesvar.[411]
Vigraharaja IV claimed to have conquered the whole region from the
Himalayas to the Vindhyas.[412]
Prthviraja III was after the overlordship of India, that is why he called
himself as Bharatesvara.[413]
At
the same time the Chahamanas were also heavily engaged against the Muslim
invaders for mearly two hundred years. Hence they had to take appropriate
measures against the Muslim danger. Obviously in an age of dynastic ambition
and recurring Muslim aggression, there was constant warfare. The army
therefore, had a vital role to pay in the country. The Chahamanas seem to have
been quite conscious of it, which is evident in the military administration
followed by them.
The
Chahamanas maintained a large army. The Ajmer stone inscription mentions that
Vigraharaja IV marched against the Muslims with an army consisting of a
thousand elephants, a hundred thousand horses, and a million of men.[414]
Hasan Nizami almost a contemporary Muslim writer, states that Prthviraja III
advanced against Muhammad Ghuri in the second battle of Tarain with an army of
three hundred thousand horses.[415]
This was confirmed by Firishta, in whose opinion an additional three thousand
elephants and a body of infantry accompained the said cavalary force.[416]
Though all these estimates may appear exaggerated to some extent yet the
strength of the Chahamana army cannot be denied.
From
the sources mentioned above, it appears that the Chahamana army mainly
consisted of three units – the elephant, the cavalry and the infantry. Chariots
seem to have become absolute in warfare; they are referred more as conventional
than an essential feature in the composition of the army.[417]
The
elephant probablyconstituted the most important unit in the army, as the
dignitaries of the kingdom, like the king and other feudatory rulers, fought
the battle from its back. Govindaraja of Delhi wounded Muhammad Ghuri from the howdah
of his war-elephant in the first battle of Tarain.[418]
The Kharataragachchha-pattavali mentions that Prthviraja III maintained
a good elephant force.[419]
The
cavalry was also an important wing in the Chahamana armyfor its swift movement.
In an emergency the horse was used by the king instead of the elephant. After
his defeat in the second battle of Tarain, Prthviraja III dismounted from his
elephant, and tried to escape from the battle field on a horse. The Kharataragachchha-pattavali
states that Prthviraja III started his digvijaya (conquest of all
the quarters) with 70,000 horse.[420]
But from the Muslim sources it appears that there was more than a four-fold
increase in the number on the eve of the second battle of Tarain. This tends to
show the growing importance of the cavalry in the Chahamana army.
Last
of all was the infantry. But due to its seldom reference in the contemporary
sources, it is difficult to asses its proper role in the Chahamana army.
The
Bijolia inscription mentions that Chahamana Ajayaraja brought to Ajmer the
captive commander of Malava by binding him to the back of his camel.[421]
The Prthvirajavijaya also states that Prthviraja III had with him camels
and other regular army units in his campaign against Nagarjuna.[422]
The mention of the camel in the Chahamana records is really interesting. There
is no evidence of using that animal for fighting purposes. It seems, therefore,
that the camel was most probably used for carrying food and other essentials
for the army in the sandy tracts of the Chahamana territory.
Along
with the offensive activities, the Chahamana rulers of Sakambhari took
defensive measures as well to resist the Muslim invaders by constructing strong
forts at the strategic points of their dominions. The forts of Hansi,
Tabarhindah, Samana, Ajmer, Delhi, Kyhram, and Sirsa were the most important
among others. The army was garrisened in these forts, and a careful watch was
made over the activities of the Muslims. Sometimes an offensive action was
directed against them from these forts.
REVENUE ADMINISTRATION :
Sources of Revenue :
For maintaining the proper administration of a state, a
regular income is very essential. The revenue administration of the state is
generally developed on the basis of this regular income. The revenue
administration of the Chahamanas of Sakambhari should also be studied by
following this very principle.
As
sufficient materials are not available , it is really very difficult to make a
proper and systematic study of the Chahamana revenue system. However, it may be
conjectured that there existed some sort of regular income of the state for
running the administration of the vast Chahamana kingdom of Sakambhari.
It
seems that the royal revenue was mainly derived from the following sources :
1.
Income from the private estates of the king.
2.
Feudal dues of the nobility.
3.
Tributes from the vassal states.
4.
Spoils of wars.
5.
Taxes paid by the traders.
6.
Revenue from the currency system
The Chahamana
king possessed private estates of various dimensions.[423]
As the well-know terms of land revenue, like bhaga and bhoga
fail to occur in the Chahamana records, it may be presumed that the private
estates of the king formed a very important source of royal revenue.[424]
The chahamana
rulers were served by many feudatory chiefs.[425]
The mobility gave its feudal dues to the king, and rendered military help to
him whenever requred. These must have been of much help to the king inthe
sphere of revenue administration.
Another considerable royal
revenue was derived from the tributes paid by the vassal states. The Chahamana
kings, therefore, took a keen interest to increase the number of the tributory
states. It served two purposes. One was the increase of royal power and
prestige; and the other was a regular supply of revenue to the royal treasury.
In the third Delhi Siwalik pillar inscription Vigraharaja IV claimed to have
made all the territories in between the Himalayas and the Vindhyas tributory to
him.[426]
Another probably
source of royal income was the spoils of war. From the Madanpur stone
inscriptions it appears that Prthviraja III brought much wealth to his treasury
by plundering the Chandella kingdom.[427]
The
Prthvirajavijaya mentions that the Sambhar Lake was an important sourc of
revenue to the Chahamana kingdom.[428]
That Lake was famous for the manufacture of salt. The Harsha stone inscription
states that the traders of Sakambhari paid taxes on salt.[429]
It thus appears that the state levied a tax on salt, which must have yielded a
substantial amount to the royal treasury.
The
currency system had also an important bearing on the royal revenue of the
state. Silver and copper coins are first noticed in the Chahamana kingdom
during the reign of Ajayaraja.[430]
It seems that with the establishment of peace and order in the kingdom, trade
and commerce flourished. Consequently need was felt for a regular currency
system. This was developed during the reign of Ajayaraja, and it continued to
exist in the subsequent reigns. As the coining of the currency appears to be
the state monopoly, it was, therefore, another important source of royal
revenue.
Expenditures
of the State :
The chief items of expenditure of
the Chahamana kingdom were on the royal household, maintenance of civil and
military administration, laying and development of the town of Ajmer,
construction of temples, palaces, lakes and other public works. In an age of
constant war, the army seems to have been the most important item of
expenditure. The Chahamana rulers had to maintain a vast army for their
military needs, and this army must have put a heacy, if not the heaviest,
pressure on the royal exchequer. Yet they were able to spend considerably for
the purpose of peaceful reconstruction as well. It seems, therefore, that the
economic condition of the Chahamaa kingdom was more or less satisfactory.
According to the Prthvirajavijaya the city Rama conquered after crossing
the sea (the Golden Lanka) and that founded by Krishna in the sea (Dwarka) are
not fit to be handmaids of Ajmer.”[431]
In fact, the poet compares Ajmer with Amravati,[432]
the capital of Indra. Though there may be some poetic exaggeration, yet it
undoubtedly reflects the general prosperity of the Chahamana kingdom of
Sakambhari.
CONCLUSION
In the preceding chapters an attempt
has been made to give an account of the Chahamana’s polity during a
transitional period in Indian History. The period is marked by the Hindu
domination gradually making way for the Muslim rule in Northern India. For
nearly two hundred years the Chahamanas made effective resistance to the
foreign aggression but ultimately failed due to the prevailing political
condition of the country.
However,
the Chahamanas of Sakambhari played a very significant role in the political
and administrative history of Northern India for several centuries before the
advent of the Muslim rule in the country. It also appears from the above
perusal that the administrative system of the period was well organised and it
was divided into several wings for better and efficient administration.
Since
the king was the head of the state it seems that it was felt necessary to raise
to the throne a competent member of the ruling family. The title Maharajadhiraja
was usually used by the emperors. Though the king was the centre of all
military, political, administrative and judicial powers, he was expected not to
behave arbitrarily. A number of checks upon the king was imposed to prevent him
from becoming an autocrat.
It
seems that the Chahamanas queen used to take some positive part in the
benevolent activities and sometimes in the administrative matters. Yuvaraja or
crown prince was regarded as an important member of the administration.
Naturally great care was bestowed upon the proper training of the crown prince.
He was to help his father in carrying on the administration on proper lines and
to the satisfaction of the subjects. The younger princes were often appointed
to some important posts in the administration. Sometimes they were in the
ministry also.
Council
of ministers have played an important role in the administration. But in the
pre-independence period, as long as the Chahamanas were under the Pratihara
rule, they had no independent policy to persue. Hence, the ministerial role in
the administration was insignificant. But with the attainment of independence
the condition completely changed and the entire responsibility for evolving on
independent policy fell directly on the shoulder of the king the later used to
take advice of his ministers in all important matters. In the council of
ministers. The Maha-mantri or chief minister became the most important member.
As the head of the council, he advised the king in administration and
supervised the work of the council.
In
the age of constant warfare, the senapati or commander of the army must have
been a very important person in the state. He was the war minister and probably
occupied a position in the ministry next to the chief minister. Sandhivigrahika
was the minister for peace and war. He advised the king on foreign affairs.
The
theme of Chahamanas overlordship is not directly related with the
administration of the period under review, even indirectly it throws light upon
the prevailing war strategy of the kings, undoubtedly a part of the
administrative pattern of the Chahamanas.
The
success of the administration depends largely upon the efficiency and ability
of the secretariat officers. Hence, ancient Indian political writers advised
the king to take great care in the selection of the secretariat officers. That
the records of the period under discussion supply us no direct and detailed
information about the machinery of the central government; and hence it is
difficult to say, how the secretariat and its various departments, were
organised and how they used to function? The records of the period merely give
us a long list of officers. However, we have form a general idea of the
secretariat and its different branches on the basis of the records of the
different dynastis of the period. The secretariat was known as Srikarana under
the Chahamanas. Its head was usually a Mahamatya. It had a big record offices
where official documents were carefully kept. The secretariat had also its
inspecting staff to control provincial and district officers. Different heads
of the administration are known as the Royal Household Department; Military
Department; Foreign Department; Police Department, Revenue Department; Treasury
Department; Finance Department; Commerce
& Industry Department; Judicial Department & Ecclesiastical Department
etc.
The
Chahamanas records mention Pratihara, Duta, Spies, Jyotishika, Karanikas, Gauda
Kayasthas as officials who were entrusted with specifie duties in the
administration. The feudatory chiefs seem to have played an important role in
the kingdom. Judicial, military and revenue administration were well organised
during the period under review.
v v v
SELECT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ORIGINAL SOURCES:
Chand Bardai : Prthviraja-Raso- Edited by
K.M.Singh, 4 Vols., Udaipur, Samvat 2011-2012
Hasan Nizami : Taj-ul-Ma asir – Extracts, Trans. in
ED, Vol. II, pp. 204 ff.
Hem Chandra : Dvyasraya Kavya (with the commentary
of Abhayatilaka Gani) –Edited by A.V. Kathvate, 2 Vols., Bombay, Vol. I (1915),
Vol. II (1921).
Jayanaka : Prthvirajavijaya (with the
commentary of Jonaraja) – Ed. by G.H. Ojha and C.S. Gulri, Ajmer, 1941.
Jayasimha Suri : Kumarapala-charita – Edited by K.V.Gani,
Bombay,1926
Jinapala : Kharataragachchha pattavali
– Extracts, Trans. in IHQ, 1950, pp. 223-31.
Lakshmidhara : Virduddhavidhividhvamsa – Extracts,
Trans. in IHQ, Vol. XVI, pp. 567-573.
Merutunga Acharya :
Prabandha chintamani – Trans. by C.H. Tawney, Calcutta, 1901.
Minhaj-ud-din : Tabaqat-i-Nasiri – Trans. by Raverty
Calcutta 1880. Also Extracts, Trans. in ED, Vol. II, pp. 259ff.
Muhammad Qasim Firishta :
Tarikh-i-Firishta – Trans. by 3. Briggs, Calcutta, 1900.
Muhammad Ofi : Jamiul-Hikayat – Extracts, Trans. in ED,
Vol. II, pp. 200ff.
Nayachandra Suri : Hammira-mahakavya – Ed. by N.J.Kirtans,
Bombay, 1879. Also Extracts, Trans. in IA, Vol. III, pp. 55-73.
Nizam-ud-din-Ahmad :
Tabaqat-i-Akbari – Trans. by B.De, Vol. I, Calcutta, 1927.
Somesvara : Kirtikaumudi – Ed. by A.V.
Kathvate, Bombay, 1983
MODERN WORKS:
Altekar, A.S. : The Rashtrakutas and their times,
Poons, 1934.
-------------- : State and Government in Ancient
India, Banaras, 1949.
Asopa, J.N. : Origin of the Rajputa, Delhi,
1976.
Bose, N.S. :Historyof the Candellas of
Jejakabhukti, Calcutta, 1956.
Brown, Percy : Indian Architecture, Bombay, 1949.
Chattopadhyaya, S. : Early History of North India (C.200 B.C. –
A.D. 650) Calcutta, 1958.
Crooke, W. : Tribes and castes of the
North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Vol. II, Calcutta, 1896
Cunningham : Coins of Medieval India, London,
1894
--------------- : Later Indo-Scythians, Varanasi,
1962.
Elliot and Dowson : The History of India as told by its own
Historians, Vol. II.
Fergusson, J. : History of India and Eastern
Architecture, 2 Vols. London, 1910.
Ganguly, D.C. : History of the Paramara Dynasty,
Dacca, 1933.
Ghurye, G.S. : Rajput Architecture.
Habibullah, A.B.M.:
Foundation of the Muslim Rule in India, Lahore, 1945.
Haig, W. (Ed.) : The Cambridge History of India, Vol.
III, Delhi, 1958.
Hodivala, S.H. : Studies in Indo-Muslim History,
Bombay, 1939.
Lallanji, Gopal : The Economic Life of Northern India
(C.700-1200 A.D.), Varanasi, 1965.
Majumdar, A.K. : Chaulukyas of Gujarat, Bombay, 1956.
Majumdar, R.C. : History
of Ancient Bengal, Calcutta, 1971.
Majumdar,
R.C. & : The
Age of Imperial Kanauj, Pushlkar, A.D.(Ed.) Bombay,
1955
Majumdar,
R.C. & : The
Struggle for Empire, Pushlkar, A.D.(Ed.) Bombay,
1957
Mitra, S.K. : The Early Rulers of Khajuraho, Calcutta, 1958
Niyogi, R. : The History of
Gahadavala Dynasty, Calcutta, 1959.
Ojha, G.H. : Rajputana-ka-Itihasa
(Hindi), Vol. I, Ajmer, 1933.
Rapson, E.J. :Catalogue of Indian Coins in
the British Museum (Andhras, Kshatrapas, etc.), London, 1908.
-------------(Ed.) : The Cambridge History of India,
Vol. I, Delhi, 1968.
Ray, H.C. : Dynastic History of
Northern India, 2 Vols., Calcutta, 1931 and 1936.
Raychaudhuri, G.C. : History of Mewar, Calcutta, 1957.
Russell, R.V. : Tribes and castes of the
Central Provinces of India, Vols. II and IV, London, 1916.
Sastri, K.A.N.(Ed.) : A comprehensive History of India,
Vol. II, Calcutta, 1957.
Sharma, Dasharatha : Early Chauhan Dynasties, Delhi, 1959.
Smith, V.A. : Early History of India (4th
Edition) Oxford, 1924.
-------------- : Catalogue of the Coins in
the Indian Museum, Calcutta, Vol. Oxford, 1906.
Tod, James : Annals and Antiguities of
Rajasthan, 2 Vols., London, 1957.
Tripathi, R.S. History of Mediaeval Hindu
India, 3 Vols., Poona, 1921-26.
ARTICLES AND PERIODICALS :
Avasthy, R.S. and : Reference to Muhammadans in Sanskrit
inscriptions in Northern India (A.D.730-1320) Journal of Indian History,
Vol.XV, 1936, pp. 161-184.
Baden Powell, B.H. : Notes on the origin of the ‘Lunar’and
‘Solar’ Aryan Tribes, and on the ‘Rajput’ Clans –JRAS, 1899, pp. 295-328.
Bhandarkar, D.R. : Foreign elements in the Hindu
population – IA, 1913, pp. 7-37.
--------------- : Chahamanas of Marwar – EI,
Vol. XI, pp. 26-78.
-------------- : Some published
inscriptions reconsidered, IA, Vol. XLIII(March, 1913).
------------- : Slow progress of
Islamic Power in Ancient India – Proceedings and Transactions of the Fourth
Oriental Conference (1926), Allahabad University (1928), November, Vol. II, pp.
753-765.
Bhattacharya, U.C. New light on the Chahamana History
(Barla Inscription of Prthviraja III) PIHC, 1951, pp. 326-28.
--------------- : Some Masterpieces of
Medieval Art of Rajasthan (Summary), PIHC, 1955, p. 122.
Bose, N.S. : Karpuradevi (Mother of
Prthviraja Chauhan) – PIHC, 1856, pp. 197-202.
Burn Richard : Coinage bearing the names of
Indian Queens – JNSI, Vol. VII, Parts I and II, pp. 69-77.
Ganguly, D.C. : A new light on the history of
the Chahamanas – IH, Vol. XVI (September, 1940), pp. 567-573.
Haldar, P.R. : Some reflections on
Prthviraja- Raso – JBRAS, Vol.III, (1927), pp. 203-211.
Jagan Nath : Early History of the
Maitrakas of Valabhi- IC, Vol. V, pp. 407-414.
Kielhorns : Chahamanas of Naddula, EI,
Vol. IX, pp. 62-83, 158-159
Lahiri, B. : The coin-types of the
foreign successors of the great Kushanas, JNSI, Vol. XXXI, (1969), Part- II,
pp. 122-134.
Majumdar,R.C. : The Gurjara Pratiharas, -
Journal of the Department of Letters, Vol. X, pp. 1-76.
Ojha, G.H. : Coins of Ajayadeva and
Somaladevi – IA, 1912, pp. 209-211.
Ray, H.C. : The Age of the
Chahamana Prthviraja III- IC, Vol. VIII(April-June, 1942, No.4), pp. 323-328.
Ray, N.R. : Maitrakas of Valabhi
–IHQ, Vol, IV, pp. 453-474.
Sarda, H.B. : The Prthviraja – Vijaya –
JRAS, Vol. VIII, Part –I (1913), pp. 259-81.
------------- : Kumarapala and Arnoraja
– IA, 1912, p. 195.
Sharma, Dasharatha : Prthviraja III, The last Hindu
Emperior of Delhi – IC, Vol. XI, pp. 57-73.
------------- Coin of Muhammad bin sam
and Prthviraja – JNSI, Vol. XVI, Part I (1954), p. 122.
------------- : History of Samyogita –
The Heroine of the Prthviraja – Raso – PIHC, 1938, pp. 237-240.
------------ : Gleanings from the
Kharataragachchha-Pattavali – A History of the Jaina Acharyas of the Kharatara
branch (1010-1336 A.D) – IHQ, Vol. XXVI, (1950), pp. 223-31.
Syamal Das : The Antiquity,
Anthenticity and Genuineness of the Epic called the Prthi Raj Rase, and
commonly ascribed to Chand Bardai – JASB, Vol. LV (1887), pp. 5-65.
Tripathi, R.S. : The Pratihara Administration
– IHQ, (Haraprasad Memorial Number) Vol. IX, pp. 121-130
v v v
PREFACE
With the Arab conquest of Sind in 712
A.D. the Muslims first set a foothold in India. From Sind they tried to
penetrate into Western India, but met a rebuff from the Pratiharas.The
Pratiharas established an empire which extended from Gujarat to Bihar and from
the frontiers of the Punjab to those of Orissa. The Pratihara Empire was based
on a tradition of national greatness in resisting the Muslim invasion. For
about two centuries it was able to fulfil its historic mission.
But the distintegration of the
Pratihara Empire set in from C.916-917 A.D., and by 950 it was definitely on
the decline. The political unity of Northern India was lost, and a number of
dynasties, which ruled in different principalities as the vassals of the
Pratihara Empire, began to rise into independence. These were the Chandellas in
Bundelkhand, the Chahamanas in Sakambhari, the Chaulukyas in Gujarat, the
Paramaras in Malava, the Kalachuris in Tripuri, and the Guhilets in Medapata.
These dynasties were generally grouped together under the name Rajput. They
were not satisfied with the mere achievement of independence. Each of them was
actuated by the ambition of securing for itself an imperial authority as the
Pratiharas had achieved. In doing so these Rajput dynasties were involved in
constant struggle with each other even by ignoring the common Muslim danger
before them. As failed to joi together against the impending danger, they had
to pay the penalty of their blunder. They fought with the Muslim invaders
separately, and suffered defeat and humiliation. In fact the mutual rivalry
among these Rajput dynasties paved the way for the establishment of Muslim rule
in Northern India.
After the decline of the Pratihar
power, the Hindu Shahi dynasty of Afghanistan and the Punjab earnestly
responded to the task of opposing the Turkish invaders from Ghazni. But the
task was found to be too heavy for them, and the Ghaznavites ultimately
conquered both Afghanistan and the Punjab. Henceforth the Punjab become the
Muslim base for further raids into the interior of India.
Though the fall of the Pratihara
Empire was followed by the rise of the local Rajput Kingdoms engaged in
internecine struggles, yet the Muslims were not able to make an easy conquest
of Northern India. It was the Chahamana dynasty of Sakambhari which rose to the
occasion, and took the enerous responsibility of checking the Muslim inroads.
For nearly two hundred years the Chahamanas magnificently did their duty, and
when they collapsed in 1192, all hopes were lost. It is a significant fact that
within a decade after the second battle of Tarain, the Muslims conquered
practically the whole of Northern India from the Punjab to Bengal.
It is the polity of this valiant
Chahamaa dynasty of Sakambhari that forms the Chief theme of our study. We have
tried to discuss the subject from an analytical standpoint with the help of
available evidences.
First of all I must express my deep
gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Vinod Kumar Yadvendu, P.G. Deptt. of Ancient
Indian and Asian Studies, Magadh University, Bodh-Gaya who not only suggested
this topic to me but kindly supervised the work to its completion. It was with
his co-operation and blessings that I could complete the present work. My
thankfulness stads for my Pricipal, Aasis Kumar Jana DAV Public School, P.C. Campus,
Biharsharif.
I am thankful to my relatives and
friends who have encouraged me in various ways in completion of the present
work.
My thanks are also due to the great
scholars in the field from whose works, I have been benefitted much in my
present investigations.
My thanfulness stands for my
Principal, A.K. Jana and my dearest friend Dr. Ajay Kr. who always give my
proper, support and guide time for completing this work successfully.
I cannot forget that encouragement
given by my brother in law, Ashish Kr. that always inspires me for having a
reasearch work.
( Madhup Raman )
ABBREVIATIONS
AIK : The Age of Imperial Kanauj.
AR : Annals and Antiquities
of Rajasthan.
ASI :
Archaeological Survey of India – Annual Report.
ASI, WC :
Archaeological Survey of India – Western Circle.
ASR :
Archaeological Survey Reports.
BG :
Bombay Gazetteer.
CCIM :
Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum Calcutta.
CG :
Chaulukyas of Gujarat.
CHI :
Cambridge History of India.
CMI :
Coins of Mediaeval India.
DHNI :
Dynastic History of Northern India.
IK :
Dvyasraya – Kavya of Hemachandra.
ECD :
Early Chauhan Dynasties.
ED :
The History of India as told by its own Historians.
EHI :
Early History of India.
EHNI :
Early History of North India.
EI :
Epigraphia Indica.
HAB :
History of Ancient Bengal.
HC :
History of the Candellas of Jejakabhukti.
HK :
History of Kanauj
HM :
Hammira-mahakavya of Nayachandra Suri.
HMHI :
History of Mediaeval Hindu India.
HPD :
History of the Paramara Dynasty.
IA :
Indian Antiquary.
IC :
Indian Culture.
IHQ :
Indian Historical Quarterly.
JASB :
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.
JBRAS :
Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.
JRAS :
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.
KK :
Kiriti Kaumudi of Somesvara.
PC :
Prabandha Chintamani of Merutunga.
PIHC :
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress.
PR :
Prthviraja-Raso of Chand Bardal.
PV :
Prthvirajavijaya of Jayanaka.
RMR :
Rajputana Museum Report.
SE : The Struggle for
Empire-Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.
TA : Tabaqat-i-Akbari of
Nizamuddin.
TF : Tarikh-i-Firista.
TKA : Al Tarikh-ul-Kamil of
Ibn-ul-Athir-Bulak.
TN : Tabaqat-i-Nasiri of
Minhaj-ud-din.
v v v
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Madhup
Raman has worked under my supervision on “Aspects of Chahamana’s Polity”
for requisite number of terms. The present work incorporate the result of his
independent study the best of my knowledge and belief.
( Dr. Vinod Kumar Yadvendu )
PAGE
NO.
PREFACE - (i) - (iii)
ABBREVIATION - (iv) - (vi)
CHAPTER - I: KINGSHIP - 01 - 31
CHAPTER - II: MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL
FAMILY AND
THE MINISTRY - 32 - 46
CHAPTER - III: THE CHAHAMANA OVER-
LORDSHIP - 47 -
85
CHAPTER - IV: SECRETARIAT
AND THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS - 86 -
121
CHAPTER - V: OFFICIALS- FEUDATORIES-
TERRITORIAL UNITS - 122 - 127
CHAPTER – VI: JUDICIAL,
MILITARY AND REVENUE
ADMINISTRATION - 128 - 136
:
CONCLUSION - 137 - 140
: BIBLIOGRAPHY - 141
- 151
[1] PV, Canto V, Verse 68; Bijolia
Inscription, Verse 14.
[2] PV , Canto XI, Verse
8.
[3] Delhi Siwalik Pillar
Inscription (No.11) Verse 2.
[4] Hansi Stone Inscription,
Verse 9.
[5] PV, Canto IX, Verse
86; JRAS, 1913, p. 278
[6] Sukra, I, 86-87
[7] Ibid., I, 148-9
[8] Agni-Purana, 239,
2-5
[9] Nvk., p. 62
[10] Ibid.
[11] EI., I, p. 35
[12] EI., I, p. 131
[13] EI., I, p. 195
[14] EI., I, p. 41
[15] EI., I, p. 33
[16] EI., II, p. 183
[18] EI., XVIII, p. 95
[19] Sukra, I, pp. 73-77
[20] Agni-Purana, 225, 16
[21] Matsya-Purana; Ch.22
[22] Padma-Purana, I, 30.45ff.
[23] Markandeya-Purana,
27,21,ff.
[24] Sukra, I, pp. 78-80
[25] Ibid., I, p. 20
[26] Ibid., I, 26-27
[27] Narada, XVIII, p. 31
[28] Sukra, I, p. 87
[29] Sukra, II, 257
[30] Ibid., IV, Sect. I, 113
[31] Ibid.
[32] EI., IX, 79-81
[33] Sukanasa’s address,
Kadambari, p. 206
[34] Sukra, I, 14
[35] Kamandaka , I, 15
[36] Kamandaka, VI, 15
[37] Kamandaka, VI, 15
[38] Sukra, I, 126
[39] PV, Canto, V.
[40] A. Br. p. VII, 2. 6. VIII,
3, 13.
[41] Sa. Br., V. 2-3
[42] A. Br., VIII. 15
[43] Ibid.
[44] Mbh., XII, 58, 115-6
[45] Ibid.
[46] PV, Canto V, Vrs. 67
[47] Ibid.
[48] KKt. R. Chap. II, p. 16
[49] Ibid., p. 10
[50] VS., 18..38
[51] AV., 19.15. I; RV.,
8.61, 13.
[52] RV., 10, 103, I, AV.,
19.13.2
[53] T. Br., 3.12.32
[54] T.Br., I, 1.7.3.
[55] RV.,10, 116,2.
[56] Altekar, Rashtrakutas,
p.109
[57] KKt. R. Chap. II, p. 11
[58] Kkt. R. Chap. II, p. 11.
[59] KKt. R. Chapt. II, 11-12
[60] KKt. R. Chap. II, p. 12
[61] Ibid.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Ibid.
[64] EI., III, 266-67
[65] IA., LVI, 50
[66] PV., Canto, V.
[67] Kamandaka, I, 14-15
[68] B.D.S., I, 10, 6; AS., X, 3
[69] Narada, XVIII, 48.
[70] On Yaj, I, 366
[71] Sukra, IV, Sec. II, 130
[72] Sukra, IV, Sect. II, 3-4
[73] Agni-Purana, 222, 8.
[74] Markandeya-Purana, 130, 33
[75] Sukra, II, 2-7
[76] Sukra, I, 13-12.
[77] PV, Canto V, Verse 27
[78] PV, Canto V, Verse 90
[79] PV, Canto IX, Verses 1-35
[80] Sukra, II, 12.
[81] Ibid., II, 35-50
[82] IA, XIV, 101-4
[83] EI, IV, 118
[84] EI, VIII, 155-56
[85] EI, XI, 29-30
[86] EI, XI, 34
[87] IA, XVIII, 9-14
[88] MV, Krishna Rao, The Gangas
of Talkad, p. 129
[89] EI, XIII, 217
[90] EI, XI, 53-54
[91] EI, XI, 45
[92] F.A. S.B., XII, 104.
[93] F.A. S.B., X, 209
[94] F.A. S.B., XIV, 104
[95] E.I., VIII, 157-8.
[96] EI, VIII, 157-8
[97] EI, XIII, 210.
[98] EI, IX, 68
[99] EI, IX, 68
[100] EI, XI, 50
[101] PV, Canto V, Verse 54.
[102] SE, P. 111.
[103] IA, Vol. XIX, P. 219.
[104] PV, Cato XI, Verse 3-5.
[105] PV, Canto IX, Verses 86-89
[106] IHQ, Vol. XVI, P. 570
[107] IHQ, Vol, XVI, p. 570
[108] Ibid.
[109] IHQ, Vol. XVI, p. 570
[110] PV, Canto VIII, Verse 55.
[111] IHQ, Vol. XXVI, PP. 226-227
[113] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1070, fn.
5
[114] PV,Canto V, Verse 84
[115] Gala Inscription, JBRAS,
Vol. XXV, p. 324, Line 2.
[116] PV, Canto V, Verse 85.
[117] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1071
[118] Bijolia Inscription, Verse
15
[119] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1071;
HPD, p. 165
[120] Bijolia Inscription, Verse
15
[121] PV, Canto V, Verse 113
[122] PV, Canto X, Verse 40
[123] PV, Canto X, Verse 42
[124] PV, Canto V, Verse 120.
[125] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1071
[126] PV, Canto V, Verse 180
[127] HMHI, Vol. III, p. 148
[128] PV, Canto V, Verses 88-89
[129] PV, Canto V, Verse 90
[130] IA, 1912, p. 211; DHNI,
Vol. II, p. 1072; JNSI, Vol. VII, p. 70
[131] IA, Vol. XLI (1912), p.
209,fn. 6; RMR, 1912, p. 2
[132] PV, Canto V, Verse 97
[133] ECD, pp.41-42
[134] ECD, p. 43, fn. 4
[135] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 884
[136] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 882
[137] Bijolia Inscription, Verse
17; ECD, p. 45, fn. 10
[138] IA, Vol, XX, p. 201
[139] PV, Canto VII, Verse 12.
[140] IA, Vol. IV, p. 268; DK.
Canto XVIII, Verses 84-86
[141] KK, Canto II, Verses 27-28;
CG, p. 71
[142] PV, Canto VI, Verses 29-30
[143] PV, Canto VI, Commentary on
Verse 34, which itself, however, is missing.
[144] IA, Vol. LVIII, (1929) pp.
234-236.
[145] Bijolia Inscription, Verse
17.
[146] ASI, WC, 1914, p. 59; EI,
Vol. XXVI, p. 94
[147] ECD, p. 45.
[148] PC, p. 120
[149] IA, Vol. IV, pp. 267ff.
[150] Kumarapala-charita, Canto
IV, Verses 170ff.
[151] PV, Canto VI, Verses 29-31.
[152] DHNI, Vol, II, pp. 975-976.
[153] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 976.
[154] DHNI, Vol. II, pp. 976-977;
CG, p. 100
[155] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 987; PC,
p. 120
[156] IA, Vol.IV, p. 267
[157] IK, Canto XIX, Verses
36-60; DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1073; CG, pp. 104-105.
[158] EI, Vol. XI, Lines 4-6; pp. 43-46
[159] ASI, WC, 1908, p. 52
[160] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 988
[161] EI, Vol. II, p. 423, Lines
10-11.
[162] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 988.
[163] PV, Canto VI, Verses 1-23.
[164] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1073, fn.
3.
[165] JRAS, 1913, p. 274, fn. 1.
[166] DHNI, Vol. II, pp.
1073-1074.
[167] ECD, p. 45
[168] JASB, Vol. XLIII, pp.
104-110, Verse 3.
[169] EI, Vol. I, pp. 93-95,Verse
3.
[170] Bijolia Inscription, Verse
17.
[171] PV, Canto VII, Verse 12.
[172] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1074.
[173] DHNi, Vol. II, p. 1074.
[174] IA, Vol. XX, pp. 201-202
[175] IA, Vol. XIX, pp. 215-219
[176] IA, Vol. XIX, p. 219.
[177] Kumarapala Charita, Canto IV, Verse 117.
[178] BG, Vol. I, Part I, p. 189,
fn. 1.
[179] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 986.
[180] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 985.
[181] DHNI, Vol. II, pp. 987-988.
[182] ASI, WC, 1908, p. 52.
[183] CG, pp. 106-107.
[184] EI, Vol. XI, p. 70; ASI,
WC, 1907-1908, pp. 44-45.
[185] Bijolia Inscription, Verse
21.
[186] Second Kiradu Inscription
(EI, Vol.XI, p. 43).
[187] Pali Inscription (EI, Vol.
XI, p. 70).
[188] Nadol grnat Inscription
(IA, Vol. XLI, 1912, pp. 202-203).
[189] EI, Vol. XI, pp. 54-55.
[190] EI, Vol. XI, pp. 47-48
[191] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1078
[192] Bijolia Inscription, Verse
20.
[193] EI, Vol. II, p. 424, Line
27.
[194] Bijolia Inscription, Verse
22.
[195] DHNI, Vol. II, pp. 1145.
[196] JASB, Vol. XLIII, p. 108,
L. 31.
[197] EI, Vol. I, pp. 93-95,
Verse 4.
[198] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1148.
[199] IA, Vol. XX, pp. 202-203.
[200] IA, Vol. XX, p. 203
[201] IA, Vol. XIX, p. 219.
[202] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1077.
[203] PV, Canto VIII, Verse 55.
[204] PV, Canto VIII, Verse 54.
[205] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1078, fn.
5
[206] G.H.Ojha –History of
Udaipur, Vol. I, p. 57; JRAS, 1913, p. 276, fn. 2
[207] IA, Vol XLI (1912) , pp.
17-19
[208] (a) ASI, WC, 1906, pp.
59-60 (Menal Stone Inscription)
(b) JASB, Vol. LV (19886), Part I, pp. 15-16
(Menalgarh Pillar Inscription). For the
two inscriptions found at Menal please see also G.H.Ojha – History of Udaipur, Vol.I, pp. 60-61.
[209] RMR, 1923, p. 2; G.H.Ojha –
History of Udaipur Vol. I, p. 57
[210] IA, Vol. XLI (1912) , p.
17.
[211] IA, Vol. XLI (1912), p. 17.
[212] JRAS, Vol. I, p. 135.
[213] IA, 1891, p. 133.
[214] IA, Vol. XLI, (1992), p. 18
[215] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1080
[216] IA, Vol. XLI, (1912), p. 18
[217] JRAS, Vol. I, p. 135
[218] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1080
[219] Bijolia Inscription, Verse
25.
[220] RMR 1923, p. 2
[221] Bijolia Inscription, Verse
25.
[222] ASI, WC, 1906, p. 59, No.
2191
[223] Bijolia Inscription, Verse
24.
[224] PV, Canto VI, Verse 35.
[225] PV, Canto VII, Verse 11.
[226] PC, pp. 122-123
[227] PC, pp. 122-123
[228] CG, p. 113
[229] PV, Canto VII, Verse 16,
The name Achalaraja is actually found in PV, Canto IX, Verse 87.
[230] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1081, fn.
4
[231] PV, Canto IX, Verse 87.
[232] PV, Canto VIII, Verses 57-58
[233] EI, Vol. XXVI, pp. 102-112;
JASB, Vol. XL, Part I, pp. 14-15; 28-32; 40-46
[234] RMR, 1923, p. 2
[235] ASI, WC, 1910, p. 52
[236] RMR, 1923, p. 2
[237] PIHC, 1951, p. 328
[238] CCIM, pp. 257 and 161.
[239] Bijolia Inscription, Verse
27.
[240] IHQ, Vol. XVI, p. 570,
Verses 6-7
[241] DHNi, Vol. II, p. 984, fn.
4
[242] PV, Canto IX, Verses 35-43
[243] PV, Canto IX, Verses 35-43
[244] Prthviraja-Raso, Part III,
pp. 56-57
[245] PIHC, 1951,pp. 326-327
[246] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1016
[247] BG, Vol. I, Part- I, p. 194
[248] IA, Vol. VI, p. 194, Line 8
[249] DHNI, Vol. II, p. 1001.
[250] BG, Vol. I, Part I, p. 194
[251] Sukra, II, 53.
[252] EI, IX, 64
[253] Saletore;Social and
Political life in the Vijayanagar Empire I, 252
[254] Sukra, II, 294-5
[255] EI, XIV, 182-8
[256] Sukra, I, 374
[257] EI, XXIII, 101
[258] EI, II, 183
[259] EI, XIX, 15-19
[260] EI, XIV, 182-8
[261] EI, XIX, 15-19
[262] EI, V,213.
[264] Ramayana II, 100.36; Mbh.
5. 38
[265] Raj, I, 118-28
[266] ASI, Chap. 8
[267] Sukra, II, 117
[268] Sukra, II, 119
[269] R.C. Majumdar, History
Bengal, p. 284
[270] Kkt. R, IV, 28
[271] Sukra, II, 273
[272] Kkt, R, IV, 28
[273] R.C. Majumdar, History of
Bengal, p. 285
[274] Bhavagar Inscriptions, p.
158
[275] EI, I, 136
[276] FASB, V, 377-82; FAOB, VII,
253
[277] EI, XXII, 196
[278] EI, IV, 120
[279] EI, XVIII, 22
[280] EI, XXI,217
[281] Kkt, R. IV, 26
[282] IA, XVIII, 17
[283] EI, II, 343
[284] IA, XIX, 218
[285] Kkt. R, Chap. IV, p. 28
[286] EI, I, 140-7
[287] Sukra, II, 162
[288] Sukra, II, 157
[289] Sukra, II, 185
[290] Kkt. R., Chap, IV, 29
[292] EI, IV, 121, XVIII.
[293] IA, XXV, 205-8.
[294] IA, XV, 306
[295] EI, XXI, 217
[296] Raja, I, 232
[297] EI, XI, 308
[298] R.C.Majumdar, History of
Bengal, p. 285
[299] EI, IV, 248
[300] Sukra, II, 140
[301] R.C.Majumdar, History of
Bengal, p. 285
[302] Ibid., p. 285
[303] Sukra, II, 140
[304] Ibid., II, 141.
[305] Ibid., II, 141
[306] Ibid., II, 142
[307] Ibid., II, 142
[308] Kt. R., Chap. IV, 26
[309] Sukra, II, 130
[310] IA, XVIII, 341
[311] EI, II, 309
[312] EI, XI, 29
[313] IA, XIV, 159
[314] EI, XXI, 217
[315] EI, IV, 248
[316] Sukra, II, 127
[317] Ibid., II, 147
[318] Sukra, II, 131-32
[319] EI, IV, 248
[320] EI, XXI, 217; EI, XXVI, 7.
[321] EI, I, 154
[322] Ibid.
[323] Ibid.
[324] Elliot, I, p. 23
[325] IA, XV, 306, IOA., XXI,
217.
[326] R.C.Majumdar, History of
Bengal, p. 286.
[327] EI, XXI, 217
[328] IA, XV, 306
[329] IA, XV, 308
[330] EI, XXVI, 7; EI, XXIII,
290.
[331] EI, XIX, 58
[332] EI, XXI, 217
[333] Sukra, IV, 5, 83-4
[334] R.C.Majumdar, History of
Bengal, p. 286; Ancient India, p. 445
[335] IA, XV, 306
[336] EI, XXI, 95
[337] EI, IV, 248
[338] Kkt. R., Chap. IV, p. 28
[339] IA, VI, 194
[340] IA, XI, 71-3
[341] Ibid., VI, 210
[342] Ibid., VI, 199
[343] EI, XXIV, 291
[344] EI, I, 317
[345] EI, II, 309
[346] EI, XI, 139
[347] EI, II, 174
[348] EI, I, 123-135
[349] EI, XXII, 122
[350] EI, II, 309
[351] IA, XXI, 266
[352] R.C.Majumdar, History of Bengal,
p. 286 Ancient India, p. 445
[353] EI, XIX, 95
[354] EI, XXIII, 290
[355] EI, IV, 248
[356] EI, XXI, 217
[357] Ibid.
[358] Ibid., XI, 36
[359] R.C.Majumdar, History of
Bengal, p. 277
[360] EI, XVIII, 221, EI, XIX, 71
[361] Ibid., II, 117
[362] Sukra, II, 158
[363] As, II, Chap. 34
[364] Ibid.,II, 118
[365] Sukra, II, 156, Raj. VII,
266
[366] EI, XXIII, 229
[367] F.B.B.R.A.S., XXV, 322.
[368] F.B.B.R.A.S., XXV, 322.
[369] EI, IX, 4--6
[370] AS, II, Chap. 16
[371] IA, XV, 306
[372] EI, XVIII, 221
[373] Sukra, II, 119
[374] AS, II, Chap. 25
[375] EI, IV, 248
[376] EI, XXI, 95
[377] EI, XXI, 95
[378] EI,XV, 205; IA, XVI, 208
[379] IA, XVI, 208
[380] EI, IV, 160
[381] Ibid., X, 47
[382] Ibid.,
[383] Ibid., XII, 205
[384] Ibid., II, 309
[385] R.C.Majumdar, History of
Bengal, p. 285
[386] Sukra, II, 163
[388] IA, Vol. XX, p. 202
[389] PV, Canto XI, Verse 6.
[390] TN, p. 466, fn. 1
[391] IA, Vol. XX, p. 202
[392] IA, Vol. XIX, p. 219
[393] Ibid.
[394] Ibid.
[395] IA, Vol. XIX, p. 219
[396] TF, Vol. I, p. 175
[397] RMR, 1923, p. 2
[398] EI, Vol. II, p. 130 (Harsha
stone inscription of Vigraharaja II).
[399] RMR, 1923, p.2. (Dhod stone
inscriptionof Prthviraja II).
[400] Ibid.
[401] RMR, 1911-12, p. 2 (Bajta
image inscription of Prthviraja II).
[402] EI, Vol. II, p. 130
[403] Ibid.
[404] ASI, WC, 1921, p. 56
[405] EI, Vol. II, p. 129
[406] EI, Vol. II, p. 129
[407] IHQ, Vol. XXVI, p. 227
[408] ECD, p. 94
[410] IHQ, Vol. XXVI, p. 227
[411] ECD, p. 43, fn. 4
[412] IA, Vol. XIX, p. 219
[413] PV, Canto XI, Verse 8
[414] IA, Vol. XX, p. 202
[415] TN, p. 466, fn. 1
[416] TF, Vol. I, p. 175
[417] PV, Canto X, Verse 19
[418] TN, p. 460
[419] IHQ, Vol. XXVI, p. 226
[421] Bijolia Inscription, Verse
15
[422] PV, Canto X, Verse 20.
[423] EI, Vol. II, pp. 129-30
[424] SGAI, p. 209
[425] TF, Vol. I, p. 175
[426] IA, Vol. XIX, p. 218.
[427] ASR, Vol. XXI, pp. 173-174
[428] PV, Canto IV, Verses 84-85
[429] EI, Vol. II, p. 130
[430] PV, Canto V, Verses 88-90
[431] PV, Cato V, Verse 180;
JRAS, 1913, p. 273
It is a nice and worth seeing page..will be beneficial for research scholars
ReplyDeleteIt is a really very wonderful web page which describes the ancient medieval Indian history, culture and civilization which are really beneficial for all those researchers who are curious to know about Indian history.
ReplyDelete"This is a highly commendable and intellectually stimulating research article. The subtlety and investigative insight with which Dr. Madhup has unraveled the historical layers of the 'Chahamana' (Chauhan) polity are truly praiseworthy. History is not merely a chronicle of dates but an interpretation of the complex interplay between society and power—a standard that this article meets with distinction. The fluidity of the language and the incisiveness of the arguments compel the reader to view the political structures of that era through a fresh lens. It is both heartening and essential to witness such profound and research-driven discourse in the Hindi sphere. Kudos to the author!"
ReplyDelete