Mewar as Focus of Guhila State (Part-XIV)

In the fifteenth century, royal kinsmen do not seem to have played a significant role as their thirteenth century counterparts did in the consolidation of royal power and in controlling territory. — Prof. Nandini Kapur Sinha 

Thirdly, this particular genealogical list provides us with four more princes in the royal family, between Arisimha and Hammira-Sri Bhuvanasimha, son Sri Jayasimha, Laksmasimha (no kinship term appears), son Srî Ajayasimha and brother Sri Arisimha) -indicating continuity in kinship relations. Also, we find a clue to what possibly caused Mokal’s successor Kumbha to resume the use of the title of rânâ and to trace direct descent without any break from previous Guhila kings of Mewar in the same genealogical list. In this context, it is significant that Sultan Alauddin is introduced between Guhila King Samarasimha and Prince Bhuvanasimha. Since the genealogical list came from the Jains, the elite perception of the sovereignty of Mewar and its political history led to the inclusion of Sultan Alauddin Khalji in its own world. Perhaps, to diminish the importance of the Khalji interregnum at Chittaurgarh and to highlight the political power of the regional kings, Kumbha chose to utilize their erstwhile title of rânâ to explain their actual kinship relations with the Râval Guhilas of Mewar. 

Thus, Kumbha elaborated upon his kinship with previous Guhila rulers by claiming Raval Khummâna as a direct ancestor. As already noted, Khummâna had always figured in the line of royal succession in the royal records between the tenth and the thirteenth centuries and Laksmasimha (titled mahârânâ) was said to be a scion of Khummâna- vamsa. Significantly, Räval Khummana is introduced right after Räval Guhadatta without specifying the actual relationship between the two.” The motif of Räval Khummâna gets magnified as he is provided with an elaborate prasasti. Raval Khummâna is nayaka (chief)” and not king as the rajavarnana (description of the kings) section of the Kumbhalgarh Prasasti begins only after the account of Khummana. Hence, the fifteenth-century kings of Mewar gradually affiliated themselves to the erstwhile Guhila rulers by claiming direct descent from one of the ancient Guhila kings, Khummâna. In spite of the implication that the nayaka status of Khummâna would hint at their junior political status in earlier days, such motifs smoothened their transitory entry into the Guhila royal family of Mewar. All the same, they never referred to themselves directly as a junior branch of the Raval Guhilas in the fifteenth century. Even in the Puranic section (possibly composed in the post-fifteenth century) of the  Ekalingamâhâtmyam, the mahârânâs of the fifteenth century were introduced only as aparaúâkhâ (mahârânâs were the other branch of the Guhilas) and not as a junior branch of the Guhila family. 

The problem seems to have been tackled by introducing the legends of Mahap, the elder brother, and Rahap, the younger brother, in the Puranic section of Ekalingamâhâtmyam in which Rähap is said to have obtained the title of rânâ. Similar legends with elaborate motifs were extended to seventeenth century royal records such as the Jagannatharaya Temple Inscription of Rânâ Jagatsimha, Rajaprasasti and the Amarakävyam. It is significant that Kumbha introduces Mahârânâ Lakcmasimha in the royal genealogy right after the last of the ravals, Ratnasimha. Thus, claiming kinship relations with the ravals was away of legitimizing power through dynastic continuities. Last, but not the least, the question of the importance of royal kinsmen in the fifteenth century remains to be answered. 

The royal title of mahârânâ presumes the presence of rânâs (kinsmen close to the king) in the political hierarchy. But there is a significant absence of royal reference to úâkhâs (branches) and praúâkhâs (sub-branches) of the royal family in fifteenth-century royal records. Unlike the thirteenth-century Guhila kings, the fifteenth-century kings of Mewar mention neither branches nor sub-branches of their family, nor do they eulogize them. Hence, royal kinsmen do not seem to have played as significant role as their thirteenth-century counterparts did in the consolidation of royal power and in controlling territory. 

The fact that political and social linkages of fifteenth-century Guhila kings with non-Guhila Rajput chiefs of Eastern Mewar possibly played a more important role in the exercise of Guhila power is amply demonstrated by the contemporary royal references (see following section). I feel that the shift in the importance from royal kinsmen to non-Guhila Rajput chiefs of eastern Mewar in Mewar polity the fifteenth century was due to the political-military problems of the Guhila state of Mewar that compelled the state to broaden its social base.

II. Guhila Political and Social Linkages with non-Guhila Rajputs and other Political Groups in Mewar

The Cahamânas in Mewar hills The Cahamânas continued to appear as major non-Guhila Rajput chiefs in the Mewar hills in the thirteenth century. The Kadmal Copper Plate Inscription of Mahârâjâdhirâja Tejasimha of AD 1259 records the grant of land to Brâhmana Tribikrama, located in the domain of Rao Chand, Cahamâna Rão Sihasu’s son. It is evident from this record as well as Padmasimha’ late twelfth-century records that Kadmal village and its surroundings were essentially the domain of the Cahamânas of the Mewar hills (see Map 7). The title of rão testifies to their political integration into the political structure through ranking in the samanta hierarchy. The fact that royal records continued to refer to the location of the royal land grant as the râjya of Cahamâna samanta indicates the prominence of the Cahamâna families in Kadmal near Nagda-Ahada. The presence of the Cahamânas in the Mewar hills core-area becomes an obvious factor in making royal land grants to brâhmaGas in the Cahamâna domain. Since the donee, brâhmana Tribikrama, is the son of Sivaguna (donee in Padmasimha’s land grant charter) the royal dynasty strengthened links with a samanta domain by patronizing the same family of brâhmanas through the generations. 

Further down the samanta hierarchy, the presence of lower samantas such as thakkuras is also attested by a late fourteenth-century inscription. The Sitalãdevi temple inscription of AD 1366 from Gogunda village records the renovation of a temple and the installation of an image of Visnu by Thakkura Dâlâ, Thakkura batala’s son, in the reign of Rânâ Ksetrasimha. Gogunda is a pass connecting the Nägda-Ahada belt with the Abu-Sirohi region, traversing a part of the Bhil country. 

[To be continued....]
 

Share This