Although the whole of this chain of ancestry, from Kanaksen in the
second, Vijaya the founder of Valabhi in the fourth, to Samarsi in the
thirteenth century, cannot be discriminated with perfect accuracy, we
may affirm, to borrow a metaphor, that “the two extremities of it are
riveted in truth”: and some links have at intervals been recognized as
equally valid. We will now extend the chain to the nineteenth century.
=Samar Singh, Samarsi: The Tuars of Delhi.=—Samarsi was born in S.
1206.[4.5.1] Though the domestic annals are not silent on his acts, we
shall recur chiefly to the bard of Delhi[4.5.2] for his character and
actions, and the history of the period. Before we proceed, however, a
sketch of the political condition of Hindustan during the last of the
Tuar sovereigns of Delhi, derived from this authority and in the bard’s
own words, may not be unacceptable. "In Patan is Bhola Bhim the
Chalukya, of iron frame.[4.5.3] On the mountain Abu, Jeth Pramara, in
battle immovable as the star of the north. In Mewar is Samar Singh, who
takes tribute from the mighty, a wave of iron in the path of Delhi’s
foe. In the midst of all, strong in his own strength, Mandor’s prince,
the arrogant Nahar Rao, the might of Maru, fearing none. In Delhi the
chief of all [255] Ananga, at whose summons attended the princes of
Mandor, Nagor, Sind, Jalwat,[4.5.4] and others on its confines,
Peshawar, Lahore, Kangra, and its mountain chiefs, with Kasi,[4.5.5]
Prayag,[4.5.6] and Garh Deogir. The lords of Simar[4.5.7] were in
constant danger of his power." The Bhatti, since their expulsion from
Zabulistan, had successively occupied as capitals, Salivahanapur in the
Panjab, Tanot, Derawar, which last they founded, and the ancient
Lodorwa, which they conquered in the desert; and at the period in
question were constructing their present residence, Jaisalmer. In this
nook they had been fighting for centuries with the lieutenants of the
Caliph at Aror, occasionally redeeming their ancient possessions as far
as the city of the Tak on the Indus. Their situation gave them little
political interest in the affairs of Hindustan until the period of
Prithiraj, one of whose principal leaders, Achales, was the brother of
the Bhatti prince. Anangpal, from this description, was justly entitled
to be termed the paramount sovereign of Hindustan; but he was the last
of a dynasty of nineteen princes, who had occupied Delhi nearly four
hundred years, from the time of the founder Bilan Deo, who, according to
a manuscript in the author’s possession, was only an opulent Thakur when
he assumed the ensigns of royalty in the then deserted Indraprastha,
taking the name of Anangpal,[4.5.8] ever after titular in the family.
The Chauhans of Ajmer owed at least homage to Delhi at this time,
although Bisaldeo had rendered it almost nominal; and to Someswar, the
fourth in descent, Anangpal was indebted for the preservation of this
supremacy against the attempts of Kanauj, for which service he obtained
the Tuar’s daughter in marriage, the issue of which was Prithiraj, who
when only eight years of age was proclaimed successor to the Delhi
throne.
=Prithiraj.=—Jaichand of Kanauj and Prithiraj bore the same relative
situation to Anangpal; Bijaipal, the father of the former, as well as
Someswar, having had a daughter of the Tuar to wife. This originated the
rivalry between the Chauhans and Rathors, which ended in the destruction
of both. When Prithiraj mounted the throne of Delhi, Jaichand not only
refused to acknowledge his supremacy, but set forth his own claims to
this distinction. In these he was supported by the prince of Patan [256]
Anhilwara (the eternal foe of the Chauhans), and likewise by the
Parihars of Mandor. But the affront given by the latter, in refusing to
fulfil the contract of bestowing his daughter on the young Chauhan,
brought on a warfare, in which this first essay was but the presage of
his future fame. Kanauj and Patan had recourse to the dangerous
expedient of entertaining bands of Tatars, through whom the sovereign of
Ghazni was enabled to take advantage of their internal broils.
Samarsi, prince of Chitor, had married the sister of Prithiraj, and
their personal characters, as well as this tie, bound them to each other
throughout all these commotions, until the last fatal battle on the
Ghaggar. From these feuds Hindustan never was free. But unrelenting
enmity was not a part of their character: having displayed the valour of
the tribe, the bard or Nestor of the day would step in, and a marriage
would conciliate and maintain in friendship such foes for two
generations. From time immemorial such has been the political state of
India, as represented by their own epics, or in Arabian or Persian
histories: thus always the prey of foreigners, and destined to remain
so. Samarsi had to contend both with the princes of Patan and Kanauj;
and although the bard says “he washed his blade in the Jumna,” the
domestic annals slur over the circumstance of Siddharaja-Jayasingha
having actually made a conquest of Chitor; for it is not only included
in the eighteen capitals enumerated as appertaining to this prince, but
the author discovered a tablet[4.5.9] in Chitor, placed there by his
successor, Kumarpal, bearing the date S. 1206, the period of Samarsi’s
birth. The first occasion of Samarsi’s aid being called in by the
Chauhan emperor was on the discovery of treasure at Nagor, amounting to
seven millions of gold, the deposit of ancient days. The princes of
Kanauj and Patan, dreading the influence which such sinews of war would
afford their antagonist, invited Shihabu-d-din to aid their designs of
humiliating the Chauhan, who in this emergency sent an embassy to
Samarsi. The envoy was Chand Pundir, the vassal chief of Lahore, and
guardian of that frontier. He is conspicuous from this time to the hour
“when he planted his lance at the ford of the Ravi,” and fell in
opposing the passage of Shihabu-d-din. The presents he carries, the
speech with which he greets the Chitor prince, his reception, reply, and
dismissal are all preserved by [257] Chand. The style of address and the
apparel of Samarsi betoken that he had not laid aside the office and
ensigns of a ‘Regent of Mahadeva.’ A simple necklace of the seeds of the
lotus adorned his neck; his hair was braided, and he is addressed as
Jogindra, or chief of ascetics. Samarsi proceeded to Delhi; and it was
arranged, as he was connected by marriage with the prince of Patan, that
Prithiraj should march against this prince, while he should oppose the
army from Ghazni. He (Samarsi) accordingly fought several indecisive
battles, which gave time to the Chauhan to terminate the war in Gujarat
and rejoin him. United, they completely discomfited the invaders, making
their leader prisoner. Samarsi declined any share of the discovered
treasure, but permitted his chiefs to accept the gifts offered by
Chauhan. Many years elapsed in such subordinate warfare, when the prince
of Chitor was again constrained to use his buckler in defence of Delhi
and its prince, whose arrogance and successful ambition, followed by
disgraceful inactivity, invited invasion with every presage of success.
Jealousy and revenge rendered the princes of Patan, Kanauj, Dhar, and
the minor courts indifferent spectators of a contest destined to
overthrow them all.
=The Death of Samar Singh.=—The bard gives a good description of the
preparations for his departure from Chitor, which he was destined never
to see again. The charge of the city was entrusted to a favourite and
younger son, Karna: which disgusted the elder brother, who went to the
Deccan to Bidar, where he was well received by an Abyssinian
chief,[4.5.10] who had there established himself in sovereignty. Another
son, either on this occasion or on the subsequent fall of Chitor, fled
to the mountains of Nepal, and there spread the Guhilot line.[4.5.11] It
is in this, the last of the books of Chand, termed _The Great Fight_,
that we have the character of Samarsi fully delineated. His arrival at
Delhi is hailed with songs of joy as a day of deliverance. Prithiraj and
his court advance seven miles to meet him, and the description of the
greeting of the king of Delhi and his sister, and the chiefs on either
side who recognize ancient friendships, is most animated. Samarsi reads
his brother-in-law an indignant lecture on his unprincely inactivity,
and throughout the book divides attention with him.
In the planning of the campaign, and march towards the Ghaggar to meet
the foe [258], Samarsi is consulted, and his opinions are recorded. The
bard represents him as the Ulysses of the host: brave, cool, and skilful
in the fight; prudent, wise, and eloquent in council; pious and decorous
on all occasions; beloved by his own chiefs, and reverenced by the
vassals of the Chauhan. In the line of march no augur or bard could
better explain the omens, none in the field better dress the squadrons
for battle, none guide his steed or use his lance with more address. His
tent is the principal resort of the leaders after the march or in the
intervals of battle, who were delighted by his eloquence or instructed
by his knowledge. The bard confesses that his precepts of government are
chiefly from the lips of Khuman;[4.5.12] and of his best episodes and
allegories, whether on morals, rules for the guidance of ambassadors,
choice of ministers, religious or social duties (but especially those of
the Rajput to the sovereign), the wise prince of Chitor is the general
organ.
On the last of three days’ desperate fighting Samarsi was slain,
together with his son Kalyan, and thirteen thousand of his household
troops and most renowned chieftains.[4.5.13] His beloved Pirtha, on
hearing the fatal issue, her husband slain, her brother captive, the
heroes of Delhi and Chitor “asleep on the banks of the Ghaggar, in the
wave of the steel,” joined her lord through the flame, nor waited the
advance of the Tatar king, when Delhi was carried by storm, and the last
stay of the Chauhans, Prince Rainsi, met death in the assault. The
capture of Delhi and its monarch, the death of his ally of Chitor, with
the bravest and best of their troops, speedily ensured the further and
final success of the Tatar arms; and when Kanauj fell, and the traitor
to his nation met his fate in the waves of the Ganges, none were left to
contend with Shihabu-d-din the possession of the regal seat of the
Chauhan. Scenes of devastation, plunder, and massacre commenced, which
lasted through ages; during which nearly all that was sacred in religion
or celebrated in art was destroyed by these ruthless and barbarous
invaders. The noble Rajput, with a spirit of constancy and enduring
courage, seized every opportunity to turn upon his oppressor. By his
perseverance and valour he wore out entire dynasties of foes,
alternately yielding ‘to his fate,’ or restricting the circle of
conquest. Every road in Rajasthan was moistened with torrents of blood
of the [259] spoiled and the spoiler. But all was of no avail; fresh
supplies were ever pouring in, and dynasty succeeded dynasty, heir to
the same remorseless feeling which sanctified murder, legalized
spoliation, and deified destruction. In these desperate conflicts entire
tribes were swept away whose names are the only memento of their former
existence and celebrity.
=Gallant Resistance of the Rājputs.=—What nation on earth would have
maintained the semblance of civilization, the spirit or the customs of
their forefathers, during so many centuries of overwhelming depression
but one of such singular character as the Rajput? Though ardent and
reckless, he can, when required, subside into forbearance and apparent
apathy, and reserve himself for the opportunity of revenge. Rajasthan
exhibits the sole example in the history of mankind of a people
withstanding every outrage barbarity can inflict, or human nature
sustain, from a foe whose religion commands annihilation, and bent to
the earth, yet rising buoyant from the pressure, and making calamity a
whetstone to courage. How did the Britons at once sink under the Romans,
and in vain strive to save their groves, their druids, or the altars of
Bal from destruction! To the Saxons they alike succumbed; they, again,
to the Danes; and this heterogeneous breed to the Normans. Empire was
lost and gained by a single battle, and the laws and religion of the
conquered merged in those of the conquerors. Contrast with these the
Rajputs; not an iota of their religion or customs have they lost, though
many a foot of land. Some of their States have been expunged from the
map of dominion; and, as a punishment of national infidelity, the pride
of the Rathor, and the glory of the Chalukya, the overgrown Kanauj and
gorgeous Anhilwara, are forgotten names! Mewar alone, the sacred bulwark
of religion, never compromised her honour for her safety, and still
survives her ancient limits; and since the brave Samarsi gave up his
life, the blood of her princes has flowed in copious streams for the
maintenance of this honour, religion, and independence.
=Karan Singh I.: Ratan Singh.=—Samarsi had several sons;[4.5.14] but
Karna was his heir, and during his minority his mother, Kuramdevi, a
princess of Patan, nobly maintained what his father left. She headed her
Rajputs and gave battle[4.5.15] in person to Kutbu-d-din, near [260]
Amber, when the viceroy was defeated and wounded. Nine Rajas, and eleven
chiefs of inferior dignity with the title of Rawat, followed the mother
of their prince.
Karna (the radiant) succeeded in S. 1249 (A.D. 1193); but he was not
destined to be the founder of a line in Mewar.[4.5.16] The annals are at
variance with each other on an event which gave the sovereignty of
Chitor to a younger branch, and sent the elder into the inhospitable
wilds of the west, to found a city[4.5.17] and perpetuate a
line.[4.5.18] It is stated generally that Karna had two sons, Mahup and
Rahup; but this is an error: Samarsi and Surajmall were brothers: Karna
was the son of the former and Mahup was his son, whose mother was a
Chauhan of Bagar. Surajmall had a son named Bharat, who was driven from
Chitor by a conspiracy. He proceeded to Sind, obtained Aror from its
prince, a Musalman, and married the daughter of the Bhatti chief of
Pugal, by whom he had a son named Rahup. Kama died of grief for the loss
of Bharat and the unworthiness of Mahup, who abandoned him to live
entirely with his maternal relations, the Chauhans.
The Sonigira chief of Jalor had married the daughter of Karna, by whom
he had a child named Randhol,[4.5.19] whom by treachery he placed on the
throne of Chitor, slaying the chief Guhilots. Mahup being unable to
recover his rights, and unwilling to make any exertion, the chair of
Bappa Rawal would have passed to the Chauhans but for an ancient bard of
the house. He pursued his way to Aror, held by old Bharat as a fief of
Kabul. With the levies of Sind he marched to claim the right abandoned
by Mahup and at Pali encountered and defeated the Sonigiras. The
retainers of Mewar flocked to his standard, and by their aid he
enthroned himself in Chitor. He sent for his father and mother,
Ranangdevi, whose dwelling on the Indus was made over to a younger
brother, who bartered his faith for Aror, and held it as a vassal of
Kabul.
=Rāhup.=—Rahup obtained Chitor in S. 1257 (A.D. 1201), and shortly after
sustained the attack of Shamsu-d-din, whom he met and overcame in a
battle at Nagor. Two [261] great changes were introduced by this prince;
the first in the title of the tribe, to Sesodia; the other in that of
its prince, from Rawal to Rana. The puerile reason for the former has
already been noticed;[4.5.20] the cause of the latter is deserving of
more attention. Amongst the foes of Rahup was the Parihar prince of
Mandor: his name Mokal, with the title of Rana. Rahup seized him in his
capital and brought him to Sesoda, making him renounce the rich district
of Godwar and his title of Rana, which he assumed himself, to denote the
completion of his feud. He ruled thirty-eight years in a period of great
distraction, and appears to have been well calculated, not only to
uphold the fallen fortunes of the State, but to rescue them from utter
ruin. His reign is the more remarkable by contrast with his successors,
nine of whom are ‘pushed from their stools’ in the same or even a
shorter period than that during which he upheld the dignity.
From Rahup to Lakhamsi [Lakshman Singh], in the short space of half a
century, nine princes of Chitor were crowned, and at nearly equal
intervals of time followed each other to ‘the mansions of the sun.’ Of
these nine, six fell in battle. Nor did they meet their fate at home,
but in a chivalrous enterprise to redeem the sacred Gaya from the
pollution of the barbarian. For this object these princes successively
fell, but such devotion inspired fear, if not pity or conviction, and
the bigot renounced the impiety which Prithimall purchased with his
blood, and until Alau-d-din’s reign, this outrage to their prejudices
was renounced. But in this interval they had lost their capital, for it
is stated as the only occurrence in Bhonsi’s[4.5.21] reign that he [262]
“recovered Chitor” and made the name of Rana be acknowledged by all. Two
memorials are preserved of the nine princes from Rahup to Lakhamsi, and
of the same character: confusion and strife within and without. We will,
therefore, pass over these to another grand event in the vicissitudes of
this house, which possesses more of romance than of history, though the
facts are undoubted.
-----
Footnote 4.5.1:
[For the error in his date see p. 281 above.]
Footnote 4.5.2:
The work of Chand is a universal history of the period in which he
wrote. In the sixty-nine books, comprising one hundred thousand
stanzas, relating to the exploits of Prithiraj, every noble family of
Rajasthan will find some record of their ancestors. It is accordingly
treasured amongst the archives of each race having any pretensions to
the name of Rajput. From this he can trace his martial forefathers who
‘drank of the wave of battle’ in the passes of Kirman when the ‘cloud
of war rolled from Himachal’ to the plains of Hindustan. The wars of
Prithiraj, his alliances, his numerous and powerful tributaries, their
abodes and pedigrees, make the works of Chand invaluable as historic
and geographical memoranda, besides being treasures in mythology,
manners, and the annals of the mind. To read this poet well is a sure
road to honour, and my own Guru was allowed, even by the professional
bards, to excel therein. As he read I rapidly translated about thirty
thousand stanzas. Familiar with the dialects in which it is written, I
have fancied that I seized occasionally the poet’s spirit; but it were
presumption to suppose that I embodied all his brilliancy, or fully
comprehended the depth of his allusions. But I knew for whom he wrote.
The most familiar of his images and sentiments I heard daily from the
mouths of those around me, the descendants of the men whose deeds he
rehearses. I was enabled thus to seize his meaning, where one more
skilled in poetic lore might have failed, and to make my prosaic
version of some value. [For Chand Bardāi see Grierson, _Modern
Literary History of Hindustan_, 3 f.]
Footnote 4.5.3:
[Bhīma II., Chaulukya, known as Bhola, ‘the simpleton,’ A.D.
1179-1242.]
Footnote 4.5.4:
Unknown, unless the country on the ‘waters’ (_jal_) of Sind.
Footnote 4.5.5:
Benares.
Footnote 4.5.6:
Allahabad.
Footnote 4.5.7:
The cold regions (_si_, ‘cold’).
Footnote 4.5.8:
_Ananga_ is a poetical epithet of the Hindu Cupid, literally
‘incorporeal’; but, according to good authority, applicable to the
founder of the desolate abode, _palna_ being ‘to support,’ and _anga_,
with the primitive _an_, ‘without body.’
Footnote 4.5.9:
See Inscription No. 5.
Footnote 4.5.10:
Styled Habshi Padshah.
Footnote 4.5.11:
[The Gorkhas or Gurkhas are said to have reached Nepal through Kumaun
after the fall of Chitor (_IGI_, xix. 32).]
Footnote 4.5.12:
I have already mentioned that Khuman became a patronymic and title
amongst the princes of Chitor.
Footnote 4.5.13:
[The battle was fought at Tarāīn or Talāwari in the Ambāla District,
Panjāb, in 1192.]
Footnote 4.5.14:
Kalyanrae, slain with his father; Kumbhkaran, who went to Bidar; a
third, the founder of the Gorkhas. [This assertion, based on the
authority of Chand, is incorrect, Samar Singh being misplaced, and
succeeded by Ratan Singh (Erskine ii. A. 146).]
Footnote 4.5.15:
This must be the battle mentioned by Ferishta (see Dow, p. 169, vol.
ii.).
Footnote 4.5.16:
He had a son, Sarwan, who took to commerce. Hence the mercantile
Sesodia caste, Sarwania.
Footnote 4.5.17:
Dungarpur, so named from _dungar_, ‘a mountain.’
Footnote 4.5.18:
[The facts are that after "Karan Singh the Mewār family divided into
two branches—one with the title of Rāwal, the other Rāna. In the
first, or Rāwal, branch were Khem or Kshem Singh, the eldest son of
Karan Singh, Sāmant Singh, Kumār Singh, Mathan Singh, Padam Singh,
Jeth Singh, Tej Singh, Samar Singh, and Ratan Singh, all of whom
reigned at Chitor; while in the Rāna branch were Rāhup, a younger son
of Karan Singh, Narpat, Dinkaran, Jaskaran, Nāgpāl, Puranpāl, Prithi
Pāl, Bhuvān Singh, Bhīm Singh, Jai Singh, and Lakshman Singh, who
ruled at Sesoda, and called themselves Sesodias. Thus, instead of
having to fit in something like ten generations between Samar Singh,
who, as we know, was alive in 1299, and the siege of Chitor, which
certainly took place in 1303, we find that those ten princes were not
descendants of Samar Singh at all, but the contemporaries of his seven
immediate predecessors on the _gaddi_ of Chitor and of himself, and
that both Ratan Singh, the son of Samar Singh, and Lakshman Singh, the
contemporary of Ratan Singh, were descended from a common ancestor,
Karan Singh I., nine and eleven generations back respectively. It is
also possible to reconcile the statement of the Musalmān historians
that Ratan Singh (called Rāī Ratan) was ruler of Chitor during the
siege—a statement corroborated by an inscription at Rājnagar—with the
generally accepted story that it was Rāna Lakshman Singh who fell in
defence of the fort" (Erskine ii. A. 15).]
Footnote 4.5.19:
So pronounced, but properly written Randhaval, ‘the standard of the
field.’
Footnote 4.5.20:
See note, p. 252.
Footnote 4.5.21:
His second son, Chandra, obtained an appanage on the Chambal, and his
issue, well known as Chandarawats, constituted one of the most
powerful vassal clans of Mewar. Rampura (Bhanpura) was their
residence, yielding a revenue of nine lakhs (£110,000), held on the
tenure of service which, from an original grant in my possession from
Rana Jagat Singh to his nephew Madho Singh, afterwards prince of
Amber, was three thousand horse and foot (see p. 235), and the fine of
investiture was seventy-five thousand rupees. Madho Singh, when prince
of Amber, did what was invalid as well as ungrateful; he made over
this domain, granted during his misfortunes, to Holkar, the first limb
lopped off Mewar. The Chandarawat proprietor continued, however, to
possess a portion of the original estate with the fortress of Amad,
which it maintained throughout all the troubles of Rajwara till A.D.
1821. It shows the attachment to custom that the young Rao applied and
received ‘the sword’ of investiture from his old lord paramount, the
Rana, though dependent on Holkar’s forbearance. But a minority is
proverbially dangerous in India. Disorder from party plots made Amad
troublesome to Holkar’s government, which as his ally and preserver of
tranquillity we suppressed by blowing up the walls of the fortress.
This is one of many instances of the harsh, uncompromising nature of
our power, and the anomalous description of our alliances with the
Rajputs. However necessary to repress the disorder arising from the
claims of ancient proprietors and the recent rights of Holkar, or the
new proprietor, Ghafur Khan, yet surrounding princes, and the general
population, who know the history of past times, lament to see a name
of five hundred years’ duration thus summarily extinguished, which
chiefly benefits an upstart Pathan. Such the vortex of the ambiguous,
irregular, and unsystematic policy, which marks many of our alliances,
which protect too often but to injure, and gives to our office of
general arbitrator and high constable of Rajasthan a harsh and
unfeeling character. Much of this arises from ignorance of the past
history; much from disregard of the peculiar usages of the people; or
from that expediency which too often comes in contact with moral
fitness, which will go on until the day predicted by the Nestor of
India, when “_one sikka_ (seal) alone will be used in Hindustan.”
-----