Mewar as the Focus of the State (Part-IX)

Proliferation of smaller Guhila states at the periphery of Mewar due to branching off and kinship rights provided immediate political and military allies to Mewar. Contrary to the Marxist view, this process of proliferation did not lead to fragmentation of the Guhila state of Mewar. — Prof. Nandini Kapur Sinha 

As the very system of ranking was open-ended, political mobility was implicit. ‘Since the basis of territorial and political hold was not static, rank was not static either. In fact, even inadequate studies available so far would suggest that ranks held by individual families underwent changes that ranks varied from one generation to the next and that aspirations for higher ranks were operative within the individual political structures.” The formation of Mahipala house is a good instance of competition for higher ranks by junior members of the Nagda-Ahada Guhila royal family resulting in formation of junior branches. However, it is very important to note that Mahipala’s house did not remain a separate branch after with Vairata’s accession to the throne in early eleventh century.

A new junior line branched out from Yogaraja’s successor in early eleventh century. In both the cases, the records are silent about the actual geographical location of their domain. Therefore, it is difficult to locate their areas of control. Nor can it be expected to be mentioned by the official records of the Guhila state. However, formation of new branches would inevitably locate new areas of control. Only one expression refers to the new locality of control by Yogaraja’s successor: anyatra labdha rajyasya (Yogaraja’s successor obtained rulership elsewhere outside his pateral kingdom). This expression may help us tentatively locate these new areas of control. The expression explicitly points towards a locality outside the tenth-century Guhila state. If ranking was the basis for political mobility, aspirations for higher ranks could not possibly operate within the givern Guhila domain. It was not possible to assign a higher rank to Mahipala in preference to his elder brother Naravahana: the only option was to form a new domain elsewhere in the mid-tenth century.

Is concept of political fragmentation at all relevant for the Guhila state, in view of evidences cited above for the tenth-eleventh centuries? Could newly founded small principalities at the periphery of the state contribute to fragmentation? The new centres of power at peripheries were in fact likely to have contributed towards formation of a chain of immediate allies. Secondly, in the tenth-eleventh centuries there still must have been ample space available in the periphery to settle, and initiate a new dynastic order. Finally, if the junior branches had equal political rights vis-à-vis the Guhila king then would not Vijayasimha have mentioned his immediate predecessors between Mahipala (the founder of the junior house) and himself in his official record, Kadmal plates. 

The very fact that Vijayasimha, a member of the junior branch. remained silent about his immediate predecessors in a royal charter even after becoming king (and presented a single genealogical list of the Guhila dynasty) is indicative of the actual power and status of the junior branches. This is further corroborated by Paldi Inscription of Arisimha (Vijayasimha’s son and successor) which mentioned Vairisimha, Vijayasimha and Arisimha in succession along with a prasasti of the Guhila Arisimha did not even mention Mahipala, founder of the house, in his official record. He named his grandfather Vairisimha instead. Even Vairâta, an actual ruler of the Guhila throne who probably happened to be Arisimha’s greater grandfather, did not find a place in the Paldi inscription.

The fact that expansion of kinship networks, leading to formation of junior branches became phenomenal in this period is evident from the following expression in Paldi Inscription: harivistärisäkhah prajyaih patrai guhilan [patera (œri) tottapahari (the expanding branches of the Guhila kings), Thus, new centres of power did not disrupt the process of state formation initiated by the main line; instead expansion of the kinship network caused rivalries, rather than diffusing them.

Expansion of kinship network in the period witnessed emergence of Guhila centres of power in south-eastern part of upper Banas plain. Localities in Pratapgarh region of Chittaurgarh district (south-eastern part of upper Banas plain) were held by members of Nagdä-Ahada Guhila royal lineage (see Map 6). It is evident from the three inscriptions of Guhila Vigrahapala of vs 1053, 1065 and 1066 inscribed on the chhatri- pillar of Mahârâvat Bhanasimha (Bhana), a ruler of Deolia-Pratapgarh. The find-spot of these inscriptions is Jiran in the Neemach tahsil of district Gwalior. Guhila Vigrahapäla proclaimed himself mahâsâmanta- dhipati of Nagahrda. 

The claim to both ‘Guhila’ and ‘Nagahrda’ along with the rank of mahasamantadhipati suggests that the settlements of Guhila kinsmen were proliferating. These Guhila chiefs might have been incorporated into the Guhila state in the mid-tenth century as is evident from their rank of mahasamantadhipati. Guhila King Bhartrpatta’s territorial rights in Pratapgarh and his title of mahäräjädhiraja before mid-tenth century seem to support our suggestion, However, G.H. Ojha opines that Pratapgarh Guhilas of early eleventh century were probably the subordinate allies of the Paramaras of Malwa 20% This suggestion is plausible in view of Paramara incursions into southern Rajasthan in the late tenth century and their occupation of Chittaurgarh.

The emergence of a kingdom claiming Guhila lineage in the Vagod region by the late twelfth century is evident from the discovery of three inscriptions. A chronological study of these three inscriptions clearly reveals a significant process in which a local ruling family in Vagod from an obscure background claimed lineage with the Guhilas. King Vijayapala in his Ingnoda (western Malwa) Inscription of AD 1133 declared himself to be a grandson of King Prthvipäla who bore the title of Bhartrpatta úriprthvipälapädänudhyâta paramabhattaraka maharajadhirajadhiräjäparametvara fri thunapala-devapädänudkydta mahârâjâdhirajaparamesvara úri vijayapaladeva). Vijayapãla donated 309 the village of Agãsiyaka to the god Gohadeœvara situated within the division to the south of Inganapata 20 Interestingly, there is no mention. of the Guhila lineage in this record. But the reference to the title of Bhartrpatta points towards beginnings of claims of kinship connections with the Nagda-Ahada Guhilas. We have already noted that Bhartr- patta II had consolidated and extended the Guhila power in the tenth. century. Claiming kinship lineages to a famous Guhila king of the tenth century would have legitimized their power in the domain of the Guhila lineage. They possibly claimed the kinship linkage for the first time in Ingnoda record and hence refrained from claiming Gubila lineage outrightly at the point.

(continued....)

These articles are taken from Nandini Sinha Kapur ‘State Formation in Rajasthan: Mewar 7th—15th Centuries’, New Delhi, 2002. 

Share This