The inscription commences and ends with the same date, namely, 15th of the month Baisakh, S. 1220. If correctly copied, it can have no reference to Bisaldeo, excepting as the ancestor of Prativa Chahumana tilaka Sakambhari bhupati; or ‘Prithiraja Chauhan, the anointed of Sambhar, Lord of the earth,’ who ruled at Delhi in S. 1220, and was slain in S. 1249, retaining the ancient epithet of ‘Lord of Sambhar,’ one of the early seats of their power.[58] The second stanza, however, tells us we must distrust the first of the two dates, and read 1120 (instead of 1220), when Visaladeva “exterminated the barbarians” from Aryavarta. The numerals 1 and 2 in Sanskrit are easily mistaken. If, however, it is decidedly 1220, then the whole inscription belongs to Prativa Chahumana, between whom and Visala no less than six princes intervene,[59] and the opening is merely to introduce Prithiraja’s lineage, in which the sculptor has foisted in the date.
I feel inclined to assign the first stanza to Visaladeva (Bisaldeo), and what follows to his descendant Prithiraj, who by a conceit may have availed himself of the anniversary of the victory of his ancestor, to record his own exploits. These exploits were precisely of the same nature—successful war against the Islamite, in which each drove him from Aryavarta; for even the Muslim writers acknowledge that Shihabu-d-din was often ignominiously defeated before he finally succeeded in making a conquest of northern India [453].
In the passage quoted from Chand, recording the princes who led their household troops under Bisaldeo, there are four names which establish synchronisms: one by which we arrive directly at the date, and three indirectly. The first is Udayaditya Pramar, king of Dhar (son of Raja Bhoj), whose period I established from numerous inscriptions,[60] as between S. 1100 and S. 1150; so that the date of his joining the expedition would be about the middle of his reign. The indirect but equally strong testimony consists of,
First, The mention of “the Bhumia Bhatti from Derawar”;[61] for had there been anything apocryphal in Chand, Jaisalmer, the present capital, would have been given as the Bhatti abode.[62]
Second, The Kachhwahas, who are also described as coming from Antarved (the region between the Jumna and Ganges); for the infant colony transmitted from Narwar to Amber was yet undistinguished.
The third proof is in the Mewar inscription, when Tejsi, the grandfather of Samarsi, is described as in alliance with Bisaldeo. Bisaldeo is said to have lived sixty-four years. Supposing this date, S. 1120, to be the medium point of his existence, this would make his date S. 1088 to S. 1152, or A.D. 1032 to A.D. 1096; but as his father, Dharmagaj, ‘the elephant in faith,’ or Bir Bilandeo (called Malandeo, in the Hamir Raesa), was killed defending Ajmer on the last invasion of Mahmud, we must necessarily place Bisal’s birth (supposing him an infant on that event), ten years earlier, or A.D. 1022 (S. 1078), to A.D. 1086 (S. 1142), comprehending the date on the pillar of Delhi, and by computation all the periods mentioned in the catalogue. We may therefore safely adopt the date of the Raesa, namely S. 1066 to S. 1130.
Bisaldeo was, therefore, contemporary with Jaipal, the Tuar king of Delhi; with [454] Durlabha and Bhima of Gujarat; with Bhoj and Udayaditya of Dhar; with Padamsi and Tejsi of Mewar; and the confederacy which he headed must have been that against the Islamite king Maudud, the fourth from Mahmud of Ghazni, whose expulsion from the northern parts of Rajputana (as recorded on the pillar of Delhi) caused Aryavarta again to become ‘the land of virtue.’ Mahmud’s final retreat from India by Sind, to avoid the armies collected “by Bairamdeo and the prince of Ajmer” to oppose him, was in A.H. 417, A.D. 1026, or S. 1082, nearly the same date as that assigned by Chand, S. 1086.[63]
We could dilate on the war which Bisaldeo waged against the prince of Gujarat, his victory, and the erection of Bisalnagar,[64] on the spot where victory perched upon his lance; but this we reserve for the introduction of the history of the illustrious Prithiraj. There is much fable mixed up with the history of Bisaldeo, apparently invented to hide a blot in the annals, warranting the inference that he became a convert, in all likelihood a compulsory one, to the doctrines of Islam. There is also the appearance of his subsequent expiation of this crime in the garb of a penitent; and the mound (dhundh), where he took up his abode, still exists, and is called after him, Bisal-ka-dhundh, at Kalakh Jobner.[65]
According to the Book of Kings of Govind Ram (the Hara bard), the Haras were descended from Anuraj, son of Bisaldeo; but Mogji, the Khichi bard,[66] makes Anuraj progenitor of the Khichis, and son of Manika Rae. We follow the Hara bard.
Anuraj had assigned to him in appanage the important frontier fortress of Asi (vulg. Hansi). His son Ishtpal, together with Aganraj, son of Ajairao, the founder of Khichpur Patan in Sind-Sagar, was preparing to seek his fortunes with Randhir Chauhan, prince of Gualkund: but both Asi and Golkonda were almost simultaneously assailed by an army “from the wilds of Kujliban.” Randhir performed the sakha; and only a single female, his daughter, named Surabhi, survived, and she fled for protection towards Asi, then attacked by the same furious invader. Anuraj prepared to fly; but his son, Ishtpal, determined not to wait the attack, but seek the foe. A battle ensued, when the invader was slain, and Ishtpal, grievously wounded, pursued him till he fell, near the spot where Surabhi was awaiting death under the shade of a pipal: for “hopes of life were extinct, and fear and hunger had [455] reduced her to a skeleton.” In the moment of despair, however, the asvattha (pipal) tree under which she took shelter was severed, and Asapurna, the guardian goddess of her race, appeared before her. To her, Surabhi related how her father and twelve brothers had fallen in defending Golkonda against ‘the demon of Kujliban.’ The goddess told her to be of good cheer, for that a Chauhan of her own race had slain him, and was then at hand; and led her to where Ishtpal lay senseless from his wounds. By her aid he recovered,[67] and possessed himself of that ancient heirloom of the Chauhans, the famed fortress of Asir.
Ishtpal, the founder of the Haras, obtained Asir in S. 1081[68] (or A.D. 1025); and as Mahmud’s last destructive visit to India, by Multan through the desert to Ajmer, was in A.H. 714, or A.D. 1022, we have every right to conclude that his father Anuraj lost his life and Asi to the king of Ghazni; at the same time that Ajmer was sacked, and the country laid waste by this conqueror, whom the Hindu bard might well style “the demon from Kujliban.”[69] The Muhammadan historians give us no hint even of any portion of Mahmud’s army penetrating into the peninsula, though that grasping ambition, which considered the shores of Saurashtra but an intermediate step from Ghazni to the conquest of Ceylon and Pegu, may have pushed an army during his long halt at Anhilwara, and have driven Randhir from Golkonda.[70] But it is idle to speculate upon such slender materials; let them suffice to illustrate one new fact, namely, that these kingdoms of the south as well as the north were held by Rajput sovereigns, whose offspring, blending with the original population, produced that mixed race of Mahrattas, inheriting with the names the warlike propensities of their ancestors, but who assume the name of their abodes as titles, as the Nimbalkars, the Phalkias, the Patankars, instead of their tribes of Jadon, Tuar, Puar, etc. etc.
Ishtpal had a son called Chandkaran; his son, Lokpal, had Hamir and Gambhir, names well known in the wars of Prithiraj. The brothers were enrolled amongst his [456] one hundred and eight great vassals, from which we may infer that, though Asir was not considered absolutely as a fief, its chief paid homage to Ajmer, as the principal seat of the Chauhans.
In the Kanauj Samaya, that book of the poems of Chand devoted to the famous war in which the Chauhan prince carries off the princess of Kanauj, honourable mention is made of the Hara princes in the third day’s fight, when they covered the retreat of Prithiraj:
“Then did the Hara Rao Hamir, with his brother Gambhir, mounted on Lakhi steeds,[71] approach their lord, as thus they spoke: ‘Think of thy safety, Jangales,[72] while we make offerings to the array of Jaichand. Our horses’ hoofs shall plough the field of fight, like the ship of the ocean.’”
The brothers encountered the contingent of the prince of Kasi (Benares), one of the great feudatories of Kanauj. As they joined, “the shout raised by Hamir reached Durga on her rock-bound throne.” Both brothers fell in these wars, though one of the few survivors of the last battle fought with Shihabu-d-din for Rajput independence, was a Hara—
Hamir had Kalkaran, who had Mahamagd: his son was Rao Bacha; his, Rao Chand.
Rainsi had two sons, Kolan and Kankhal. Kolan being afflicted with an incurable disease, commenced a pilgrimage to the sacred Kedarnath, one of the towns of the [457] Ganges. To obtain the full benefit of this meritorious act, he determined to measure his length on the ground the whole of this painful journey. In six months he had only reached the Binda Pass, where, having bathed in a fountain whence flows the rivulet Banganga, he found his health greatly restored. Kedarnath[73] was pleased to manifest himself, to accept his devotions, and to declare him ‘King of the Patar,’ or plateau of Central India.[74] The whole of this tract was under the princes of Chitor, but the sack of this famed fortress by Ala, and the enormous slaughter of the Guhilots, had so weakened their authority, that the aboriginal Minas had once more possessed themselves of all their native hills, or leagued with the subordinate vassals of Chitor.
Rao Banga had twelve sons, who dispersed their progeny over the Patar. He was succeeded by Dewa, who had three sons, namely, Harraj,[75] Hatiji, and Samarsi.
The encounter was fierce, but the Hara was victorious, and Ganga turned his back on the lord of the Patar, who tried the mettle of this son of the Par, pursuing him to the banks of the Chambal. What was his surprise, when Ganga sprang from the cliff, and horse and rider disappeared in the flood, but soon to reappear on the opposite bank! Dewa, who stood amazed, no sooner beheld the Rao emerge, than he exclaimed, “Bravo, Rajput! Let me know your name.” “Ganga Khichi,” was the answer. “And mine is Dewa Hara; we are brothers, and must no longer be enemies. Let the river be our boundary.”
1. [The name is said to be derived from that of the Hāra Hūnas or Huns (IA, xi. 5) or from Rāo Hado or Harrāj.]
3. According to Herodotus, the Scythic sakae enumerated eight races with the epithet of royal, and Strabo mentions one of the tribes of the Thyssagetae as boasting the title of Basilii. [Herodotus (iv. 22) speaks of the Thyssagetae, possibly meaning ‘lesser,’ Getae, as contrasted with the Massagetae or ‘greater’ Getae, but he does not call them ‘royal’; and, in any case, they have no connexion with the Rājputs (see Rawlinson, Herodotus, 3rd ed. iii. 209).] The Rajputs assert that in ancient times they only enumerated eight royal sakham or branches, namely, Surya, Soma, Haya or Aswa (qu. Asi?) Nima, and the four tribes of Agnivansa, namely, Pramara, Parihara, Solanki, and Chauhan. Abulghazi states that the Tatars or Scythians were divided into six grand families. The Rajputs have maintained these ideas, originally brought from the Oxus.
4. [The ancient Māhishmati (IGI, xvii. 8 ff.). Sahasra or Sahasra Vāhu Arjuna, ‘the thousand-armed,’ of the Haihaya tribe, is the reputed ancestor of the Kalachuris of Chedi (BG, i. Part ii. 293, 410; Smith, EHI, 394).]
5. Or, as the bard says, Daityas, Asuras, and Danavas, or demons and infidels, as they style the Indo-Scythic tribes from the north-west, who paid no respect to the Brahmans.
7. My last pilgrimage was to Abu.
8. [There is no local tradition corroborating the connexion of the Chauhāns with Garha-Mandla, and it is merely a fiction of the Chauhān bards (C. Grant, Gazetteer Central Provinces, Introd. i.).]
9. [Another title of the Parihār tribal goddess is Chāwanda Māta, whose temple is in the Jodhpur fort (Census Report, Mārwār, 1891, ii. 31). In Gujarāt the Jādejas worship Āsāpūrna; the Jhālas Ādya; the Gohils Khodiyār Māta; the Jethvas Vindhyavāsini; the Pramārs Mandavri; the Chāvadas and Vāghelas Chāmunda (BG, ix. Part i. 136).]
10. It is by no means uncommon for this arrogant priesthood to lay claim to powers co-equal with those of the Divinity, nay, often superior to them. Witness the scene in the Ramayana, where they make the deity a mediator, to entreat the Brahman Vashishta to hearken to King Vishwamitra’s desire for his friendship. Can anything exceed this? Parallel it, perhaps, we may, in that memorable instance of Christian idolatry, where the Almighty is called on to intercede with St. Januarius to perform the annual miracle of liquefying the congealed blood.
11. [This is a fiction of the bards, and the S. Indian burial-mounds have no connexion with the Chauhāns (see IGI, ii. 94).]
12. [This S. Indian Chauhān empire is a fiction, the object being to provide a princely genealogy for the S. Indian royal families (see BG, ix. Part i. 484).]
13. The Muhammadan writers confirm this account, for in their earliest recorded invasion, in A.H. 143, the princes of Lahore and Ajmer, said to be of the same family, are the great opponents of Islam, and combated its advance in fields west of the Indus. We know beyond a doubt that Ajmer was then the chief seat of Chauhan power.
14. The Mallani is (or rather was) one of the Chauhan Sakha and may be the Malloi who opposed Alexander at the confluent arms of the Indus. The tribe is extinct, and was so little known even five centuries ago, that a prince of Bundi, of the Hara tribe, intermarried with a Mallani, the book of genealogical affinities not indicating her being within the prohibited canon. A more skilful bard pointed out the incestuous connexion, when divorce and expiation ensued. Vide p. 1266.
15. [When Alāu-d-dīn stormed Asīrgarh in A.D. 1295 it was a Chauhān stronghold. The existence of this Ahīr kingdom rests on the authority of Ferishta (iv. 287). This is doubtful, but it may be based on a line of Ahīr chieftains in the Tapti valley (Russell, Tribes and Castes, Central Provinces, ii. 20).]
16. All these towns contain remains of antiquity, especially in the district of Dip, Bhojpur, and Bhilsa. Twenty years ago, in one of my journeys, I passed the ruins of Eran, where a superb column stands at the junction of its two streams. It is about thirty feet in height, and is surmounted by a human figure, having a glory round his head; a colossal bull is at the base of the column. I sent a drawing of it to Mr. Colebrooke at the time, but possess no copy. [The Eran pillar was erected A.D. 484-5, as the flag-staff of the four-armed Vishnu, by Budhagupta (Smith, HFA, 174, with an illustration; IGI, xii. 25).]
17. It is indifferently called Ajaimer, and Ajaidurg, the invincible hill (meru), or invincible castle (durg). Tradition, however, says that the name of this renowned abode, the key of Rajputana, is derived from the humble profession of the young Chauhan, who was a goatherd; Aja meaning ‘a goat’ in Sanskrit; still referring to the original pastoral occupation of the Palis. [Ajmer was founded by Ajayadeva about A.D. 1100.]
18. I obtained at Ajmer and at Pushkar several very valuable medals, Bactrian, Indo-Scythic, and Hindu, having the ancient Pali on one side, and the effigy of a horse on the other.
19. [Umar-bin-Khaltāb, the second Khalīfa (A.D. 634-44). The “Abul Aas” of the original text possibly represents Abu-l-lais, “the ancestor of the Laisi Sayyids, Abu-l-lais-i-Hindi, who is mentioned in the Chachnāmah, who came into Sind with the Arabs, and was present at the battle in which Rāja Dāhir was slain” (C. Raverty, Notes on Afghanistan, 1888, p. 671, note).]
20.
[This quotation is so incorrect that neither Dr. Tessitori nor Major Luard’s Pandit is able to restore it. The latter cannot make any sense of the second line. The date is impossible.]
21. An inscription on the pillar at Firoz Shāh’s palace at Delhi, belonging to this family, in which the word sākambhari occurs, gave rise to many ingenious conjectures by Sir W. Jones, Mr. Colebrooke, and Colonel Wilford.
22. Called Khichkot by Babur.
23. [The Bhaurecha and Bāghrecha do not appear in modern lists of the Chauhān clans (Census Report Rājputāna, 1911, i. 255 f.).]
24. In the Annals of Marwar it will be shown, that the Rathors conquered Nagor, or Naga-durg (the ‘serpent’s castle’), from the Mohils, who held fourteen hundred and forty villages so late as the fifteenth century. So many of the colonies of Agnikulas bestowed the name of serpent on their settlements, that I am convinced all were of the Tak, Takshak, or Nagvansa race from Sakadwipa, who, six centuries anterior to Vikramaditya, under their leader Seshnaga, conquered India, and whose era must be the limit of Agnikula antiquity [?].
25. The importance of Nadol was considerable, and is fully attested by existing inscriptions as well as by the domestic chronicle. Midway from the founder, in the eighth century, to its destruction in the twelfth, was Rao Lakhan, who in S. 1039 (A.D. 983) successfully coped with the princes of Nahrvala.
Literally: “In S. 1039, at the farther gate of the city of Pātan, the Chauhān collected the commercial duties (dān). He took tribute from the lord of Mēwār, and performed whatever he had a mind to.” [This verse is so corrupt that Dr. Tessitori has been unable to correct it.]
Lakhan drew upon him the arms of Sabuktigin, and his son Mahmud, when Nadol was stripped of its consequence; its temples were thrown down, and its fortress was dilapidated. But it had recovered much of its power, and even sent forth several branches, who all fell under Alau-d-din in the thirteenth century. On the final conquest of India by Shihabu-d-din, the prince of Nadol appears to have effected a compromise, and to have become a vassal of the empire. This conjecture arises from the singularity of its currency, which retains on the one side the names in Sanskrit of its indigenous princes, and on the other that of the conqueror.
26. [Vighraharāja, or Vīsaladeva, who is said, with doubtful truth, to have wrested Delhi from the Tomaras (Smith, EHI, 387).]
27. Harsraj and Bijai Raj were sons of Ajaipal, king of Ajmer, according to the chronicle.
28. ['Destroyer of foes.']
29. This is a very important admission of Ferishta, concerning the proselytism of all these tribes, and confirms my hypothesis, that the Afghans are converted Jadons or Yadus, not Yahudis, or Jews. [The extract in the text is an inaccurate abstract of Ferishta’s statement (i. 7 f.). The Gaur Rājputs have no connexion with Ghor.] The Gaur is also a well-known Rajput tribe, and they had only to convert it into Ghor. Vide Annals of the Bhattis.
30. [The account of Ferishta (i. 69) lacks confirmation: see Elliot-Dowson ii. 434 ff.]
31. The classical mode of writing the name of Bisaldeo.
32. Chattispun.
33. It is related by the Rajput romancers that Guga had no children; that lamenting this his guardian deity gave him two barley-corns (java or jau), one of which he gave to his queen, another to his favourite mare, which produced the steed (Javadia) which became as famous as Guga himself. The Rana of Udaipur gave the Author a blood-horse at Kathiawar, whose name was Javadia. Though a lamb in disposition, when mounted he was a piece of fire, and admirably broken in to all the manège exercise. A more perfect animal never existed. The Author brought him, with another (Mirgraj), from Udaipur to the ocean, intending to bring them home; but the grey he gave to a friend, and fearful of the voyage, he sent Javadia back six hundred miles to the Rana, requesting “he might be the first worshipped on the annual military festival”: a request which he doubts not was complied with.
34. See note, p. 1450, for remarks on Nadol, whence the author obtained much valuable matter, consisting of coins, inscriptions on stone and copper, and MSS., when on a visit to this ancient city in 1821.
35. We have abundant checks, which, could they have been detailed in the earlier stage of inquiry into Hindu literature, would have excited more interest for the hero whose column at Delhi has excited the inquiries of Jones, Wilford, and Colebrooke.
36. This lake still bears the name of Bisal-ka-tal notwithstanding the changes which have accrued during a lapse of one thousand years, since he formed it by damming up the springs. [About A.D. 1150 (Watson i. A. 50).] It is one of the reservoirs of the Luni river. The emperor Jahangir erected a palace on the bank of the Bisla Talao, in which he received the ambassador of James I. of England.
37. This shows that the Parihars were subordinate to the Chauhans of Ajmer.
38. The respectful mention of the Guhilot as ‘the ornament of the throng,’ clearly proves that the Chitor prince came as an ally. How rejoicing to an antiquary to find this confirmed by an inscription found amidst the ruins of a city of Mewar, which alludes to this very coalition! The inscription is a record of the friendship maintained by their issue in the twelfth century—Samarsi of Chitor, and Prithiraj the last Chauhan king of India—on their combining to chastise the king of Patan Anhilwara, “in like manner as did Bisaldeo and Tejsi of old unite against the foe, so,” etc. etc. Now Tejsi was the grandfather of Rawal Samarsi, who was killed in opposing the final Muslim invasion, on the Ghaggar, after one of the longest reigns in their annals: from which we calculate that Tejsi must have sat on the throne about the year S. 1120 (A.D. 1064). [Tej Singh is mentioned in inscriptions of A.D. 1260, 1265, 1267 (Erskine ii. B. 10).] His youth and inexperience would account for his acting subordinately to the Chauhan of Ajmer. The name of Udayaditya further confirms the date, as will be mentioned in the text. His date has been fully settled by various inscriptions found by the author. (See Transactions Royal Asiatic Society, vol. i. p. 223.)
39. This Tuar must have been one of the Delhi vassals, whose monarch was of this race.
40. The Gaur was a celebrated tribe, and amongst the most illustrious of the Chauhan feudatories; a branch until a few years ago held Sui-Supar and about nine lakhs of territory. I have no doubt the Gaur appanage was west of the Indus, and that this tribe on conversion became the Ghor [?].
41. The Meo race of Mewat is well known; all are Muhammadans now.
42. The Mohils have been sufficiently discussed.
43. The Baloch was evidently Hindu at this time; and as I have repeatedly said, of Jat or Gete origin.
44. ‘The lord of Bamani,’ in other places called Bamanwasa, must apply to the ancient Bahmanabad, or Dewal, on whose site the modern Tatta is built. [See Smith, EHI, 103.]
45. See Annals of Jaisalmer.
46. All this evinces supremacy over the princes of this region: the Sodha, the Samma, and Sumra.
47. Of Derawar we have spoken in the text.
48. Malanwas we know not.
49. The Moris, the Kachhwahas and Bargujars require no further notice. [Antarved, the Ganges-Jumna Duāb.]
50. The Meras inhabited the Aravalli.
51. Takatpur is the modern Toda, near Tonk, where there are fine remains.
52. Udayaditya, now a landmark in Hindu history.
53. See Annals of Shaikhavati for the Nirwans, who held Khandela as a fief of Ajmer.
54. The Dor and Chandel were well-known tribes; the latter contended with Prithiraj, who deprived them of Mahoba and Kalanjar, and all modern Bundelkhand.
55. The renowned Dahima was lord of Bayana; also called Druinadhar. [The ancient name was Srīpathā (IGI, vii. 137). This catalogue of the chiefs is the work of the Chauhān bard, desirous of exalting the dignity of his tribe, and is not historical.]
56. [These statements regarding the Chauhān dynasty are inconsistent with the Bijolli inscription, and Cunningham (ASR, i. 157) finds it impossible to make any satisfactory arrangement, either of the names of the princes, or of the length of their reigns. The facts, as far as they can be ascertained, are given by Smith (EHI, 386 ff.). Cunningham (op. cit. ii. 256) points out the author twice ignores the date of A.D. 1163 of Vīsaladeva on the Delhi pillar, to make him an opponent of Mahmūd in the beginning of the eleventh century. “In one place he gives to Hansrāj, whom the Hāra bard assigns to the year A.D. 770, the honour of conquering Sabuktigīn, which in another place he gives to his successor Dujgandeo.” He concludes that the chief cause of error is the identification of two different princes of the name of Vīsaladeva as one person. For his discussion see ASR, ii. 256 f.]