Mewar as the Locus of Guhila State (Part-VI)

The presence of kinsmen of some of the queens facilitated consolidation of Guhila power through the administrative and military network. — Prof. Nandini Kapur Sinha

The administrative and military apparatus of the Guhila state evolved in the same period, as the state became complex, and the scope of administrative and military activities widened, as befits a regional (rather than local) power. Inscriptional evidences indicate that most of the important local and migrant Rajput chiefs had been integrated into the political structure by the tenth century in different capacities. It is important to locate the chiefs as officials at the strategic points. Secondly, there was the emergence of various departments of administration.

It is noteworthy that the centres of administrative importance for the Guhila state did not necessarily mean the capital town with its court, courtiers, fortresses and royal household. The centres of administrative for the Guhila state would also be the centres of exchange, mining and religious activities. Areas merging into tribal territory commanded importance for economic, ideological and strategic reasons. Chattopadhyaya points out the importance of fortresses as foci of control in the early phase of ascendancy of Rajputs. The possibility of a few small fortresses at strategic points such as beginnings of routes into forests and tribal territory cannot be ruled out. The exchange centres of importance in the Guhila state, as evident from inscriptional records, were Aranyaküpagiri, Ahada, Pratapgarh, Khohar, Sajjanpura, Talahati, Mount Abu, and Chittaurgarh. Inscriptional evidence for important religious centres map out the following sites: Aranyaküpagiri, Ahada, Pratapgarh, Paldi, Jagat, Chirava, Chittaurgarh. Centres of mining included Aranyaküpagiri near NägdaÄhada, the copper belt of the Mewar hills, Dariba near Kankroli (zinc and lead mines), and Zawar (zinc-lead-silver concentrate, 40 km south of Udaipur city). While most of these important centres are in the Mewar hills, the rest lie in the upper Banas plain. Hence, the Guhila state seems to have had effective control not only of Nägda and Ahada but also of the centres listed above (inscriptionally attested). These centres would not have appeared in the records of the had they not been controlled.

Although the absence of direct inscriptional evidences do not permit us to locate the non-Guhila Rajput chiefs, references to the lineages and fathers of some of the Guhila queens in the Atapura inscription indicate the presence of Caulukya, Cahamana, Rästrakûta, Paramâra and Hûna chiefs at least at few of the strategic points. It may be assumed that some of these chiefs were entrusted with special responsibilities of negotiating with the local Bhil chiefs. These Rajput chiefs were indeed administratively crucial to the state. Some of these chiefs could be of local origin and might have territorially integrated into the Guhila domain. Rest of the chiefs could be migrants such as the Hunas from Hoshangabad. Undoubtedly, the presence of kinsmen of some of the queens facilitated consolidation of the Guhila power through the administrative and military network.

The sources of the period throw light on the important offices of administration and the nature of personnel at the seat of power, Ahada. The Saranesvara Temple Inscription of AD 953 refers to the members of a gosthika. Gosthikas were usually the administrators attached to religious institutions. In the case of royally patronized temples, the gosthikas seem to have been appointed by the state to administer the affairs of these institutions (Adivaraha, Visnu, Sürya, Nanigasvami, and a number of Œaiva temples constructed by the Guhila royal house).Pratihara and Hûna Rajputs appear as officials in the gosthikas at the temple of Adivaraha at Ahada.” The other important offices of administration evident from SaraGeúvara inscription are those of town gate-keepers or door-keepers (pratihâri) and managers of ecclesiastical affairs (dharma). Pratihâra Rudrahasa and Rahata appear as Pratihâris. Hûna Kastika and Sridhara occupy the office of ecclesiastical affairs. Hûna Mattata appears as King Allata’s minister (amatya). Thus, important members of the Pratihära and Hûna lineages were integrated through important administrative ranks.

Since Guhila Allata had a Huna queen from central India, matrimonial alliances of the Nagda-AhadaGuhilas in the early phase of their rise seems to have helped them organize a network of power.” Huna, the member of gosthika could be a kinsman of Queen Hariyadevi. Mayura and Samudra appear as a akcapatalas (accountants or depositories of legal documents) and Durlabharaja as sandhivigrahika (an officer for peace and war).  While Naga figures as the chief bard, Rudraditya and Mammata appear as the chief of medical men and minister respectively. It is significant that someone named Hünals and Yasahpuspo of Pratihära lineage figure as members of this gosthika

Cahamanas appear as important officials in the eleventh century. It is evident from the Kadmal Plates that a dura (messenger) Ranadhavala,, son of Sagamda, was a Cahamânarajaputra,  A Saulamki (Solamki) rajaputra figures as an important member of the gosthika in the twelfth century. The Paldi Inscription of AD 1116 refers to Saulamki Rajaputra Œri Salakhanara, the son of Rajaputra ŒriUpala. As late as the early thirteenth century, Rajputs continued to occupy the top ranks in administration. It seems from the Chirava inscription that Bhimasimha and his son Rajasimha served Jaitrasimha and Tejasimha respectively as ministers (pradhanyampräpya). It is also noted that Bhimasimha had to die fighting for the state of Mewar against Gujarat (ministers were diverted to military functions during external invasions), Two Kayasthas also figure, Pala and Vellaka, as the writers of Saranesvara Inscription of AD 953.

Given the extensive rural base of the state, local level administrative bodies can be expected to have expanded. However, the term pañcakulika figures in only one royal record of the period. The scribe of the Kadmal plates of Guhila Vijayasimha (AD 1083), Nagapala the son of Pandita Unhila, belonged to the pañcakulika caste,161 This stray evidence does not speak for the absence of the pancakulika throughout the expanse of the territory. The members in such corporate bodies were likely to be the notables of the rural society. Appointments made from amongst local population ensured continuity of tenures at the local level, irrespective of dynastic change. The rural notables of the earlier period such as kutumbins, vanikas, etc. (e.g. the list of witnesses in the Kiºkindha Guhila grants) may not have necessarily dominated the local administrative bodies in the later period, as pointed out by Chattopadhyaya in the case of early medieval Bengal.           

Share This