THE LAST DAYS OF PRITHVIRAJ CHAUHAN

At the battlefield of Tarain in c. 1192, as the sun was about to set, the Rajput commander Govindraja fell down. Prithviraja, the emperor of Ajmer and Delhi, visualizing the Rajput 'sun' sinking down, stepped down from his elephant, took a horse, and rushed towards the Chauhan stronghold of Sarasvati (Sirsa). But alas, he was recognized, pursued and overtaken in the neighborhood of the fort of Sarasvati (Tabaqat-i-Nasiri) by the Turks. (The place Sirsa in Hissar district is mentioned as Sarasvati in Karamachandra vamsotkritanka kavya of Jayasoma.) The Turks soon followed and the fort surrendered to the Muslims. Prithviraja was either captured in the neighbourhood of this fort, or he might have surrendered and made a prisoner. 

Prithvijaj ( as per Taj-ul-Masir, ED, II, p. 215; Tabaqat-i-Akbari, I, 39) somehow managed to obtain immunity from punishment and was carried to Ajmer which the Sultan captured after slaying thousands of its heroic defenders and reserving the rest for slavery. The pillars and foundations of its temples were destroyed and it was despoiled of its all wealth. According to some sources, Mohammad Ghori seems to have reinstated Prithviraja on the throne of Ajmer (Prabandhachintamani, p. 117-118). A unique coin bearing the name of both Prithviraja and Mohammad bin Sam issued from Delhi mint supports that Prithviraja may initially be retained as a vassal chief (See Thomas in his Chronicles of the Pathan Kings of Delhi. Pp. 17-18 and JNSI, XVI, p. 122).

                But he was soon removed from the reins of power and taken away by Ghori to Ghazni as a prisoner. His son Govinda was made the ruler of Ajmer (Taj-ul-Maasir, ED II, 216). Almost all historical sources confirm that Prithviraja was detected in an intrigue or conspiracy and ‘the diamond like sword severed the head of that abandoned wretch from his body’. It is also confirmed by all the Muslim sources that Muhammad of Ghor was killed by an infidel (non-Muslim). The severity of intrigue is the only contention of dispute between the historians.

                Hasan Nizami in Taj-ul-Maasir says that “Prithviraj’s ancient hatred was deeply rooted and concealed in the bottom of his heart. He was detected in an intrigue and was beheaded by the orders of the Sultan.” Prabandha Chintamani (p. 117-118) states that “when it was found that Prithviraja’s picture gallery in Ajmer contained paintings representing Muslim soldiers being killed by pigs, he was beheaded.” Prithviraj Prabandha, a manuscript written by Muni Jinavijaya composed much earlier but copied in 1471 discloses further- “The Sultan sat in the court in front of the place where they had housed Prithviraja (after his capture). This distressed the raja. The raja’s prime minister, who was a traitor, approached him and said, My lord, what can be done? It was so destined.” The Raja replied, “If thou givst me my bow and arrow, I shall kill the Sultan.” He assented and going to the Sultan asked him not to sit at his usual place. The Sultan had a metal statue of himself put there. Then going to the Raja, the minister provided him with a bow. The raja shot the arrow and the statue fell divided into two pieces. The Raja threw off the bow, saying, ‘My task has not been accomplished; somebody else has been killed.’ Then the Sultan had the Raja thrown into a pit and pelted with stones. Puratan Prabandha Sangraha, p. 87. Prithvirajaraso, Surjancharita and Ain i Akbari elaborate it further. Ain-i-Akbari (II, p. 307) tells that Prithviraja was taken prisoner and carried by the Sultan to Ghazni, where he was tortured and blinded. Chand Bardai, the bard, who was a native of Lahore, in his fidelity and loyalty hastens to Ghazni, entered the Sultan’s services and gained his favour. By his address, he discovered the Raja and comforted him in prison. He proposed that he should praise his dexterity with the bow to the Sultan who would desire to witness it, and that then he might use his opportunity.

                Prithviraj Raso says that the Sultan arranged for the display of the archery event and the blind Prithviraj was promptly guided by the bard about the location of the Sultan thus: Char bans, chaubis hasta, angul asta praman/ ta upar Sultan hai, mat chuko Chauhan. On the command of the voice of the Sultan, Prithviraj shoot his shabd-bhedi baan and pierced the Sultan with that arrow. The Ghori soldiers fell on both of them and cut them to pieces.

                On the outskirts of Ghazni at a small village called Deak, are two domed tombs. The larger one was of Gori Sultan, and few metres away is a small tomb in a celler where people jumped on the central mud structure holding a long, thick rope, ending with a knot at the shoulder height. Local visitors would grab hold of this knot in one hand and stamp vigorously and repeatedly with one foot on the bare patch at the centre of the tomb. (Arms and Armour: traditional weapons of India by E Jaiwant Paul; see also Ghazni’s best Kept Secret, an article by SC Sharma, Indian Express, April 25, 1998). The local Afghans believe that at that spot the infidel king of Delhi, Prithviraj Chauhan, lay buried. The Afghans, before going to the grave of Ghori, go and kick the grave of Prithviraj, due to the hatred and anger for the infidel killer.

                The Chauhan Rajputs also believe the same. During the Anglo-Afghan wars, the Chauhan soldiers searched for the prithviraja’s remains at Ghazni. Elliot writes, “Several of our Chauhan sepoys, after the capture of that fortress, sought out, and professed to find, theChhatri (or monument) of their ancestor, where they showed their devotion to his memory by presenting their humble offerings in honour of the champion of their faith. (Elliot’s Supplementary Glossary, Vol. I, p. 65)  Sher Singh Rana, the prime accused in the Phoolan Devi (bandit queen) murder case, escaped from the Tihar Jail in 2004. Getting a fake passport from Ranchi he flew to Afghanistan in 2005 on a student visa, financed by a fellow prisoner Subhash Thakur. During his three months stay in that country, he finally reached Ghazni, where he posed himself as a Pakistani historian who had came to restore the Ghori’s tomb. On the sly, he dug Rai Pithora’s grave and collected the sand and ‘ashes’ which he even recorded on video. In April 2005, he was back in India, and sent the ‘ashes’ of Prithviraj through courier to Etawah and organized a function there with the help of local Chauhans. 

PRITHVIRAJA-SANYOGITA

PRITHVIRAJA-SANYOGITA

pp

PRITHVIRAJ-SANYOGITA: HISTORICITY OF A LOVE STORY

According to Prithvirajaraso, Sanyogita, an incarnation of heavenly nymph Rambha, was the beautiful daughter of King Jaichand of Kannauj, whose marriage through a svayamvara was planned by his father. However, she fell in love hearing the heroic deeds of the young and handsome Rai Pithaura, the national hero who had defeated all the contemporary powerful kings including the dreaded Mlechcha Gori by the age of 23 years. Prithviraja vijaya, Sarga 12, verse 74 says that her heart set on her lover as a kamalini thinking of the Sun alone, when faced by the moon and stars (the numerous rajas invited to svayamvara). She sent a message to Prithviraj to abduct her. Prithviraj, based on this message and without even seeing her, fell violently in love with her, even though he had been married more than once and had never seen her in person (Sarga 10, 2 and Sarga 12, 1-38). Sarga 12, verse 38 mentions an upasruti (a voice revealing the future) that Prithviraja would, if tried hard, secure his desired object, i.e. Tillotima who had incarnated herself on earth as a princess on the bank of Ganges and will soon unite with him. This love story is mentioned also by Abul Fazl (in Ain-i-Akbari II, pp. 305-6) and Surjancharita by Chandrasekhara in which she is named Kantimati (X, 13-128).

King Jai Chand, who had organized the svayanvara at his capital Kannauj, deliberately did not invite Prithviraja on account of his rivalry for the overlordship of India. Instead, to carry out the integrity of the festival, a statue of Prithviraj was made of gold and placed in the office of porter at the royal gates. His putting up of statue of Rai Pithaura at the gates was an old Rajput custom to humiliate one’s rivals. Dantidurga Rastrakuta, for instance, made his rivals, the Gurjar Pratiharas and some other rulers, his gate-keepers in the hiranyagarbha-mahadana at Ujjain as per Sanjan Plates of Amoghavarsha (EI, XVIII, pp 235-57).  Roused to the indignation at this news, Prithviraj, in a daring act, abducted her from the svayamvara in presence of all the princes at the court of King Jaichand. Prithviraja’s choisest hundred samantas, who had accompanied him in disguise, covered the eloping pair’s flight by engaging the forces pursuing them and fell fighting to the last for their beloved master. Govind Rae Gahlot, Narsingh Deva, Chand Pundhir, Sardul Solanki, Palhan Deo Kachwaha, and other samantas, after performing astonishing heroism, perished in this retreat in order to cover the escape of Prithviraja. There is precedence of such abductions such as the case of Rastrakuta prince Indra, who though a feudatory of the Chalukyas, succeeded in carrying off their princess Bhavanaga by force from her marriage pandal at Kaira (EI, XVIII, p. 243).

The Raja, with the bard Chand, and the two of his brothers, brought his bride successfully to Delhi amid the admiration of a wonderful world. At Ajmer, Prithviraja duly married the princess and thereafter spent most of his time in the company of the new queen (Prithviraja Raso. 64^th and 65^th samaya). 

Prithviraj Chauhan and Sanyogita’s love was characterized by loyalty, purity and trust, because of which their love story is immortalized,  as it grew strong in spite of all odds imposed by the society. No one could separate the eternal lovers, not even death. Prithviraj Raso mentions that when Sanyogita got the news of the defeat of Prithviraj at the battle, she put on her best dress and ornaments and became sati along with five thousand rajput women at the fort of Delhi (Raso, Kannauj Samay, verse 397-401). 

Queen Padmini in historical context

Padmavati illustrated in a 18th c manuscript

Non-availability of facts does not makes a legend fase. The legends come out of facts only. Queen Padmini of Chittor and her sacrifice is one such legend which has never been analysed in historic context. The love story of Queen Padmavati and Rawal Ratan Singh of Chittor, and of the covetous Sultan Allaudin Khilji of Delhi suddenly errupts in a great detail in the Avadhi poetic epic Padmavat (c.1540) of Malik Mohammad Jayasi and its 12 Persian/Urdu versions. However, the episode of Padmini was known certainly before this date.

An illustration from Padmavat

            The historicity of Rawal Ratan Singh of Chittor (Chitrakut) is attested from an inscription dated 24 January 1303 on a stone slab embedded in a column of Annapurna Mata temple at Dariba (Kankroli). Thus Rawal Ratan Singh was the ruler of Chittor just four days before Allaudin Khilji left the fort of Siri in Delhi for his Chittor Campaign on 28 January 1303. Two coins of the reign of Rawal Ratan Singh now available in National Museum, New Delhi also attest him as a historical figure. There is one inscription of his father Rawal Samar Singh dated January 1302 at Cittor fort now shifted to Government Museum Udaipur. The Kumbhalgarh Inscription dated 1460 now kept in Gevernment Museum Udaipur in its verse 176-178  mentions:

“After leaving the defence of the Chitrakut hill (Chitor) in the hands of his son, Ratan Simh, the ruler Samar Simh with all his sins washed by the worship of Mahesh, became the lord of Swarg. When Ratan Singh had ‘left’, Lakshman Simh of the Khoman dynasty defended that majestic fort, even though the established traditions of the family be forsaken by cowards, those who are valorous and stedfast do not give up their duty. Having thus destroyed his enemies in battle, he (Lakshman Simh) died purified by weapons while defending Chitrakut.”

            Besides inscription, there is a contemporary literary reference that throw some more light on the incident. Khazanain-ul-Futuh (c. 1310) of Amir Khusro, which is kept in Kings College Library Cambridge, mentions the expedition on Chittor from horse’s mouth:

“On 28 January 1303, Sultan left Siri having firmely resolved to conquer Chittor, the moons of the flag got moving. The Sultan reached Chittor at the head of the army. Two wings of the army were deployed on the two sides of fort but the flood of the flashing swords of the Sultan’s army could reach no further than the waist line of the fort for as much as two months. The fort was then ordered to be pelted with stones shots through minjaniqs. This also failed. On 25 August 1303, the Solomon of the Age (Sultan Allaudin) entered the fort where even a fluttering sparrow could not go. Khusro, his hudhud (the favourite bird of Solomon who first brought him information about the charming Bilqis, the queen of Sheeba and was later sent with a message for the queen to surrender to him) followed into the citadel behind him....

 They shouted, “Hudhud, Hudhud” again and again. But I would not return; for I was afraid of the Sultan’s wrath. Just in case he enquired, “How is that I see not Hudhud around? Is he one of the deserters?” What would be my excuse for absence if he demanded, “Bring me a clear plea?” If the Emperor declares in his anger, “I shall chastise him,” how could the delicate bird have the strength to take the punishment? Having been singed from top to toe with the lightening of the Sultan’s wrath, the Rai (Rawat Ratan Singh) streaked throught he stony gate like a spark from a stone and dashed to the royal pavilion while getting drenched on the way. This way, he saved himself from the swords flashing like lightening. Hindus believe that brass utensils attract lightening. The Rai’s face, then, looked pale like brass (out of panic). The cool breeze of the royal mercy saw to it that no hot wind of hostility blew by him. However, thirty thousand hindus became the victims of his wrath and they were mown like dry grass.”

            In the narrative of Amir Khusro, a few important facts emerge, which are not yet considered by historians and later on destorted by Hindu bards and Islamic chronicle writers. First fact is is the surrender of Rawal Ratan Singh to Allaudin Khilji, which was omitted later on by bards and historians. However, a contemporary sanskrit work Nabhinandana Jinadhara Prabandha (c. 1336) written by Kakka Suri mentions: ‘Alavdina captured the ruler of Chitrakuta fort, confiscated his property and made him move like a ‘neck-tied’ monkey from city to city’. (चित्रकूट दुर्गेशं बध्वा लात्वा च तध्दनम , कंठ्बद्ध कपिमिव भ्राम्यंतम् च पुरे पुरे.) Kumbhalgarh inscription dated 1460 also indirectly refers Ratan Singh’s act  of ‘leaving’ Chittor  as cowardice.   

Another important fact which was indirectly put up by Amir Khusro is the simily of Biblical story of Solomon, Hudhud and non-descriptant Bilqis. Describing Alaudin as King Solomon, himself as bird Hudhud thus implicating Padmini as queen Bilqis. Khusro entered the fort  along with his master and then went missing. He was reluctant to appear before the Sultan as the soldiers behind the Sultan were crying ‘Hudhud, Hudhud’. Probably, the mission of the hindi-sppeaking and sweet-talking Khusro was to excercise his charms on the beautiful lady and put her for a consensual submission to Sultan, rather than a cumpulsive affair. His mission failed when the lady reduced herself to ashes; and Amir Khusro was reluctant to face the wrath of emperor. However, thirty thousand Rajputs had to face the anger and wrath of the Sultan. Also the Rawal, who was kindly treated in the begining got badly humiliated in the end. The lustful demand for Padmini and her subsequent jauhar must have been a humiliating experience for the Sultan.Khusro, therefore, must have thought it wise not to talk about these events openly.

            Similarly, this episode of cowardice of Ratan Simh in first allowing Alaudin to see a indecent glimpse of the queen and then his surrendering and humiliation by Sultan was also a disgrace to the House of Chittor, and there was a silence for next 200 years. But the valour and sacrifice of Rani Padmini was definitely in the minds of the people and it came out slowly in latter literature with minor distortions.

            The first reference of Rani Padmini’s name appears in Chitai Charit (c. 1526) written by Narain Das at Sarangpur during the regime of Salhadi Purbiya.  Verse 455 and 456 mentions three contemporary historical royal ladies, Deval Devi of Ranthambhor, Padmini of Chittor and Chhitai of Devgiri who were coveted by the Delhi Sultan. The verses say:

             रंथम्भोर देवल लगि गयो, मेरो काज न एकौ भयो.

      एउ बोलइ ढीली कउ धनी, मइ चित्तोर् सुनि पदुमिनी. 455

      बंध्यो रतन सेन मइ जाइ, लइगो बादिल ताहि छ्डाइ.

      जो अबके न छिताइ लेऊ, तो यह सीसु देवगिरि देऊ. 456

It is well known that during the seige of Ranthambhor in c.1301 by Sultan Allaudin Khilji, princess Deval Devi daughter of Rana Hammir Deva Chauhan along with other ladies committed jauhar. Similarly, Allaudin Khilji laid seige of Chittor in c. 1303 and even imprisoned Rawal Ratan Singh Guhilot of Chittor to get his queen Padmini, but Badal Chauhan and other rajputs rescued him back and Rani Padmini and other ladies of Chittor did jauhar. He then turned to Devgiri in c.1307, where he coveted Chhitai, daughter of Raja Ram Chander Dev of Devagiri who was finally captured by him and added to Sultan’s haram.

Padmavat, written in Persian script with language Avadhi in 1540 by Malik Mohammad Jaisi near Amethi in UP mentions in great detail the story of Padmini. Padmavat being written by a Muslim and showing a Muslim Sultan in poor  light makes the story creditable. The main characters of Padmavat are of course Padmavati, daughter of King Goverdhan of Ceylon and Rawal Ratan Simh of Chitrakut, who are in love. Sultan Alaudin Khilji of Siri (Delhi) wants to possess Padmavati by force. Raghav Chenan is the mendicant who informs the Sultan about the extraordinary beauty of Padmavati and asks him to get her by invading Chittor. The story was known by then and  Jaisi has admited that his source material comes from Kavi Bain.

Gora Badal Kavit by an anonymous writer is a small work consisting of just 82 verses, and is said to be written even earlier than Padmavat. Both Padmavat and this work seems to have been composed independent of each other. Though the theme is same, but this work mentions Gora and Badal as Chauhan warriors, and central theme is the rescue operation by Gora and Badal to save the honour and dignity of their queen Padmini. Based upon this manuscript, is the Gora Badal Padmini Chaupai, a poetic composition of 620 verses by Jain muni Hem Ratan at Sadarhi Rajasthan in c. 1588. The writer acknowledges Kavi Hetamadan as the source of his story. A number of works followed soon such as Ain-i-Akbari (c.1590) of Abul Fazl which briefly mentions the Padmini story independent of Jaisi’s Padmavat;  Tawarikh-i-Ferishta (c.1609) by Mohammad Qasim Farishta; Padmini Gora Badal Cahupai by Jat Mal Nahar of Lahore (c. 1613); Padmini Charit Chaupai by Labdhodaya (c. 1650); and Khuman Raso by Daulat Vijaya (18^th c) with a chapter on Padmini episode.