Mewar as Locus of Guhila State (Part-XII)

Mewar Kings and Kinship (The Thirteenth Century)

Repeated royal references to the Guhila lineage and the absence of references to non-Guhila chiefs point to the growing importance of royal kinsman. — Prof. Nandini Kapur Sinha

An examination of the thirteenth-Century records of the Guhila royal house points to the consolidation and expansion of Guhila monarchical power, which was accompanied increasingly by the concentration of power with royal kinsmen. The earliest thirteenth-century record refers to Sri Jaitrasimha as maharajadhirahja. A Jain record from Chittaur of AD 1267 refers to Sri Tejasimha as rajabhaga vannanarayanamaharaja implying divine attributes. Significantly one of the most important of the thirteenth-century private records from Mewar, the Chirava inscription, uses grandiose titles for the Guhila kngs such as mahisvar and bhupala for padmasimha, ilapati for Tejasimha nrpati for Mathanasimha nrpa and rajana for Jaitrasimha, ksitipati for Samarasimha, and so on to distinguish the Guhila kings from the rest of the Guhila royal family. Bonth the Chittaurgarh (AD 1274) and the Achalesvara (AD 1285) Inscriptions tracing the ancestry of the thirteenth-century Guhila kings to Bappa, Puranapurusa (primeval man) magnify his role in the foundation of the Guhila royal power in Mewar. The son born to him was to him was Guhila and succeeding kings are presented as follows:

Guhila – Bhoja – Sila – Kalabhoja – Bhartrpatta – Simha – Mahayaka – Khummana – Allata – Naravahana – Saktikumara – Sucivarma – Naravarma – Kirttivarma – Vairisimha – Arisimha – Coda – Vikramasimha – Ksemasimha – Kumarasimha – Mathanasimha – Padmasimha – Jaitrasimha – Tejasimha – Samarasimha.

Unlike the Kadmal plates of the late eleventh century and the Paldi inscription of the early twelfth century royal records of the thirteenth century neither acknowledge Mahipala, founder of an important junior branch in the tenth century, nor confine the royal genealogy to a few select preceding kings on the Guhila throne (see for instance, Paldi Inscription of dated AD 1116). Not only do royal records attempt ot project a unified genealogy, even records of important functionaries such as those of the Tamtarada family form Chirava introduce each king as a son (tanuja) or younger brother of the previous ruler. This recording of royal genealogies by administrative functionaries of the state reveals percolation of the royal perception of its own power to the ranks of the elite at least. However, contemporary records also points to the political importance of the royal kinsmen.

Both royal as well as private records indicate that a political hierarchy based on rank existed. The queen mother Jayatalladevi’s reference to Guhila King Samarasimha as maharajakula (maharaval) seems to point to a hierarchy of ravals (royal kinsmen:immediate kinsmen of the king) which was headed by King Samarasimha as mahanijakula. Hence both the royal and private records establish the fact that at least by the second half of the thirteenth century, Guhila kings presided over a number of ravals or royal kinsmen who were recognized by their formal political status. Before moving on to a discussion of the role of kinship in the Guhila state of Mewar, one must note that besides ravals, no other political title can be gleaned from contemporary records.

The presence and importance of the royal kinsmen in the political structure of the Guhila state is also evident from the royal recognition of the lineage of the Guhilas and its branches, in their official charters. Royal records which propagate legitimizing motifs for the Guhila monarch also significantly eulogize the Guhila lineage and its branches as kuthara-dharasta brumahe guhila vamsam parosakham (the axe-edged tree of the Guhila lineage with branches) as well as sakhopasakhakulitah suparvagunsochitah….. guhilasya vamsah (branches and sub-branches of the AGuhila royal family are full of fine qualities). The same records repeatedly refer to the Guhila royal lineage as guhila vamsa prasiddhaham gauhilyamavamsa guhilakula and sanrpatih guhilabhidhano. These references to the royal lineage and its branches undoubtedly indicate proliferation of several branches of the royal family by the second half of the thirteenth century. Royal concern for their immediate kinsmen is also evident from royal prasastis of the branches and sub-branches of Guhila royal kinsmen in the organization of territorial control.

The thirteenth-century annexation of Chittaurgarh and expansion beyond Mewar further increased royal dependence on close kinsmen due to the failure of the Guhilas to enlist the support of non-Guhila chiefs (of the upper Banas plain and Particularly of Chittaurgarh). Unlike tenth-century references to chiefs of non-Guhila Rajput families. At least non-Guhila Rajput families of Chittaurgarh and upper Banas plain should have been mentioned in the contemporary royal records for their continuing role in the territorial integration of the Guhila state. It is important to remember as has already been mentioned that samantas played a significant role in the abdication of Samantasimha and in the succession of Kumarasimha. But repeated royal references to the Guhila lineage and the conspicuous absence of references to non-Guhila chiefs point to the growing importance of royal kinsmen. 

However, the two royal prasastis of the thirteenth century maintain a conspicuous silence on the ranking system. Similarly, although the Chittaurgar (AD 1274) and Achalesvara (AD 1285) Inscriptions refer to the branches and sub-branches of the Guhila lineage, they do not refer to King Samarasimha as maharaval. Also though queen mother Jayatalladevi’s record refers to reigning king, Samarasimha s maharajakula, it designates the preceding King Tejasimha (Queen jayatalladevi’s husband) as medapatadhitpati. This suggest that royal inscriptions were reluctant to highlight the ranking system. Thus royal proclamation of Guhila kings as the sovereigns of Mewar despite the presence ot rajakulas cannot be taken a face value. The fact that the evidence suggest that King Samarasimha who had attained extensive territorial acquisitions was also possibly the first Guhila king to have been designated as maharaval strengthens my view that by the second half of the thirteenth century, Guhila kings were increasingly depending on their close kin for the consolidation of Guhila power. (to be continued)

Share This