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.
Samarsi was born in S. 1206924. Though the domestic annals are not silent on his acts, we shall recur chiefly to the bard of Delhi925 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 frame926. 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 Marti, fearing none. In Delhi the chief of all [255] Ananga, at whose summons attended the princes of Mandor, Nagor, Sind, Jalwat927, and others on its confines, Peshawar, Lahore, Kangra, and its mountain chiefs, with Kasi928, Prayag929, and Garh Deogir. The lords of Simar930 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 Matti 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 Anangpal931, ever after titular in the family. The Chauhans of Ajmer owed at least homage to Delhi at this time, although Risaldeo 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.
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 tablet932 in Chitor, placed there by his successor, Kumarpal, bearing the date S. 1200, 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 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 chief933, 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 line934. 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 hint, 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 Khuman935; 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 chieftains936. 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.
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.
Samarsi had several sons937; 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 battle938 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 Mewar939. 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 city940 and perpetuate a line941. 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. Karna 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 Randhol942, 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.
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 noticed943; 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’s944 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.
924. [For the error in his date see p. 281 above.]
925. 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 Barad see Grierson, Modern Literary History of Hindustan, 3 f.]
926. [Bhima II, Chaulukya, known as Bhola, ‘the simpleton,’ A.D. 1179–1242.]
927. Unknown, unless the country on the ‘waters’ (jal) of Sind.
928. Benares.
929. Allahabad.
930. The cold regions (si, ‘cold’).
931. 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.’
932. See Inscription No. 5.
933. Styled Habshi Padshah.
934. [The Gorkhas or Gurkhas are said to have reached Nepal through Kumaun after the fall of Chitor (IGI, xix. 32).]
935. I have already mentioned that Khuman became a patronymic and titlo amongst the princes of Chitor.
936. [The battle was fought at Tarain or Talawari in the Ambala District, Panjab, in 1192.]
937. 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).]
938. This must be the battle mentioned by Ferishta (see Dow, p. 169, vol. ii.).
939. He had a son, Sarwan, who took to commerce. Hence the mercantile Sesodia caste, Sarwania.
940. Dungarpur, so named from dungar, ‘a mountain.’
941. [The facts are that after “Karan Singh the Mewar family divided into two branches – one with the title of Rawal, the other Rana. In the first, or Rawal, branch were Khem or Kshem Singh, the eldest sou of Karan Singh, Samant Singh, Kumar Singh, Mathan Singh, Padam Singh, Jeth Singh, Tej Singh, Samar Singh, and Ratan Singh, all of whom reigned at Chitor; while in the Rana branch were Rahup, a younger son of Karan Singh, Narpat, Dinkaran, Jaskaran, Nagpal, Puranpal, Prithi Pal, Bhuvan Singh, Bhim 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 Musalman historians that Ratan Singh (called Rai Ratan) was ruler of Chitor during the siege – a statement corroborated by an inscription at Rajnagar – with the generally accepted story that it was Rana Lakshman Singh who fell in defence of the fort” (Erskine ii. A. 15)1
942. So pronounced, but properly written Randhaval, ‘the standard of the field.’
943. See note, p. 252.
944. 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.”
This collection transcribed by Chris Gage