swadeshi jagran manch logo

Mewar as the Locus of the State (Part-VIII)

The legends of Bappa, Haritarashi and Eklingaji and Brasmha-Kshatra social staus dominated the political and religious symbols of the Guhila state of Mewar in the thirteenth century. Ranking system facilitated expansion of the royal Guhila family of Nagda-Ahada accomplishing territorial and political integration of Mewar. — Prof. Nandini Kapur Sinha

 

Political and religious symbols: Thirteenth Century
The acquisition of Chittaurgarh bestowed political sanctity on the Guhila royal family as the sovereigns of Mewar. As noted, Chittaurgarh had evolved into a symbol of political eminence in southern Rajasthan since the beginning of its career as Nagari, the capital of the ancient 8-ibis. As it was annexed and integrated into the expanding Guhila state, the Guhilas of Nagda-Ahada could legitimately call themselves the kings of Mewar. Thus was completed the process of territorial unification. So, it was with the Guhila acquisition of Chittaurgarh that the region of Mewar could identify itself with the Guhila royal family of Nagda-Ahada. 

The culminating phase of this process found echoes in the new political and religious symbols. It was in the thirteenth century that the Guhilas acquired new political and religious symbols. They were no longer the Guhilas of Nagda-Ahada: they were formally transformed into Guhilas of Medapata (Mewar).  

The point of reference for legitimization, with new territorial acquisitions, was no longer just the Mewar hills for the Guhilas, but all Mewar.A significant turn in their genealogical structure in thirteenth century changed the political and religious symbols. The Chittaurgarh Inscription (AD 1274) and the Achalesvara Inscription (AD 1285) of Samarasimha claimed Bappaka and not Guhadatta, as the founder of the royal house of Medapata, it is Guhila (Guhadatta) merely appeared as his son. Thus, Guhadatta of the tenth-eleventh century was dropped from the thirteenth century records as the founder of the royal family. The records claimed the bestowal of the state of Mewar on Bappa by the Pashupata sage Haritarashi with the favour of Ekalinga. The sage also gave Bappa, a Brahmana by caste, a golden anklet and Bappa got his Brahmanahood exchanged for Kshatriyahood which was obtained by the blessing of God Ekalinga who was happy with the devotion of the Pash upata sage, Haritarashi. Thus, the new political and religious symbols of the thirteenth century revolved around the legends of Bappaka-HaritarasHi-Ekalinga-Medapata and the status of Bramha-ksatra (Brahmana Bappa receiving ksatriyahood from Haritarashi). 

Kinship Structure, Proliferation of the Branches of Nagda-Ahada Guhilas, Expansion of Nagda-Ahada Guhla Power in Vagod (Middle Mahi Basin) and Emergence of Centres of Power in Upper Banas Plain and Vagod Claiming Guhila Lineage. 

The first evidence of segmentations of the Nagda-Ahada Guhila royal family comes from a late eleventh century record, the Kadmal Plates of Guhila Vijayasimha (AD 1083). The reads: 

Guhadattah - Bhoja – Mahendra (I) – Naga - Sila - Aparajita - Mahendra (II) – Kalabhoja - Khummana (I) - Mattata - Bhatrpatta (I) - Simha - Khummana – Mahoyaka – Khummana (II) – Bhartrpatta (II) – Allata – Mahipala – Vairata – Hamsapala – Vairisimha – Vijayasimha. 

The relation of each succeeding prince with his immediate predecessor in the description got mentioned from Simha (the twelfth ruler) onwards in contrast with the earlier rulers. For instance, Simha is Bhartrpatta (I)’s son (simho = bhava ... daku(nu)va(ta)sya suto = tha(tha) yaje). It is significant that instead of Naravahana of tenth-century records, Allata is succeeded by Mahipala in the present record. Naravahana, the successor of Allata, is not mentioned by the above record. 

Therefore, it is obvious that both Naravahana and Mahipala were sons of the same father, Allata. Naravahana being the eldest, succeeded to the throne in regular succession after Allata. This is the main reason why all the known epigraphic records of the Guhilas of Mewar mention Naravahana. The question arises, however, as to why this particular record omits the mention of Naravahana and proclaims instead, Mahipala as the son and successor of Allata. The question becomes important in view of the fact that Mahipala never succeeded to the throne of Naga-Ahada in the tenth century. None of the Guhila records except Kadmal plates mentions Mahipala as a Guhila prince. One may assume that only if Vijayasimha (the Guhila king issuing Kadmal plates) belonged to a branch of the Guhila ruling family other than that of Naravahana’s, would he have mentioned his immediate ancestors (rather than Naravahana). In other words, it is likely that Vijayasimha belonged to a junior branch of the ruling house. Evidently, this junior branch originated with the younger son of Allata, Mahipala. This is evident from the fact that Vairata who preceded Hamsapala   in the genealogy had obtained rulership elsewhere, i.e. outside his paternal place (anyatra labdha rajyasya). 

The fact is corroborated by the third slab of Kumbhalgarh inscription, which stated that the progeny of Yogaraja (who figures in the main list of the rulers), the predecessor of Vairata, did not attain regal status, and that the lot finally fell on Vairata who was a descendant of a branch of Allata’s lineage.” The above genealogical variations as culled from all the extant and important records are presented below. 

Allata (vs 1010 = AD 953) 

Senior Branch – 1. Naravhana (vs 1028 = AD 971), 2. Salivahana, 3. Shaktikumara (vs 1034 = AD 977), 4. Ambaprasada, 5. Suchivarman, 6. Naravarman, 7. Anantavarman, 8. Yasovarman, 9. Yogaraja, 10. Vairata (vs 1083 = AD 1026) 

Junior Branch — Mahipala. 

In the Kumbhalgarh slabs, the second major segment of the ruling house which branched off with Yogaraja’s son in the early eleventh century is mentioned. Since Yogaraja’s son could not succeed to the throne, the scion of the immediate junior branch, Vairata was the next legal claimant. Thus, Vairata succeeded Yogaraja. A fragmentary inscription of vs 1083 (AD 1026) preserved in the Victoria Hall Museum at Udaipur can probably be assigned to the reign of Vairata (the major portion containing the name of the ruling prince and other details are lost).  It is important that neither a fifteenth-century literary source like the Ekalitigamc-Thiittnyam (Section: Rajavarnana) nor a seventeenth-century epigraphic or literary source such as Rajaprashasti and Amarakavyam   provide any clue to early junior branches. The question arises as to what necessitated these segmentations of the royal family that led to proliferation of its junior branches. A.K. Vyas is probably right when he points out that it might have been a case of some internal family feud of the Guhila state in this period (tenth-eleventh centuries). Formation of new branches seems to have been the most plausible consequence of the ranking system which was the basis of political integration.

This article is taken from Nandini Sinha Kapur, ‘State Formation in Rajasthan: Mewar during the 7th—15th Centuries’, New Delhi, 2002.
 

Share This

Click to Subscribe