Indian Antiquary Vol 02

SR No.: 032494
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jas Burgess
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 428
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 20 MB

Page 350

316
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
Kumar Pâla is thus used. The Jethvâ chronicles say that the title of Rânâ was derived from a defeat by Jethva Sangji of the Waghela Rânâ of Anhilwâdâ Paṭṭan, Kumar Pâla's son Karsanji or Krishnaji. The Jethvâ is said to have defeated Karsanji and taken him prisoner, but to have released him at the intercession of the neighbouring chieftains, among whom was Akhèrajji of Sirohi. A condition of the release was that the Wâghelâ should resign the title of Rânâ, which has from that day been held by the Jethvâ Chief of Porbandar. The bardic couplet regarding this battle is as follows:
સંગજી લીંપી શાખ અંગ જેવી ખાદીત રાણુ ખલે રાખ રણમાં 2 રાણા અવતર. Sangaji, with a body like the sun, founded a (new) title;
While the Rânâ who descended into the Ran had his title of Rânâ burned to ashes. Now as Akhêraj of Sirohi ascended the gádí in Samvat 1580 (A. D. 1524), it is clear that this could not be Kumar Pâla of Anhîlwâdâ Paṭṭan, and it is highly probable that the Wâghelâ Rana in question was Rânâ Mandanji of Gedi in Waghar, or possibly Rânâ Visal Dê of Morwâdâ, both of whom were Waghela Rânâs and contemporaries, being both of them sons of Rânâ Vanoji of Gedi. Rânâ Visal De's date is known from the inscription on the Rânâ Wây near Morwâdâ, to have been Sam. 1516, or A.D. 1460. His younger brother Mandanji succeeded to the yád, and is in all probability the Rânâ in question, if it be not Visal Dê himself, who may have essayed to conquer Morbi after his establishment at Morwâdâ. If this slight alteration then be made in the names of the sovereigns of Pattan in the legends in question, the dates given in Ranchoḍji Devân's history may be accepted as the approximately correct ones. The legend about Râ Gârio styles him grandson of Råe Chuda, who was probably Chudachand Yadav, and who is well known in the contemporary annals of the Rajput houses. Tod assigns to Rao Chudachand the date Sam. 960 (A.D. 904), whereas if he were grandfather of Rå Gârio, Sam. 760 (A.D. 704) would be nearer the mark. This discrepancy is difficult to reconcile, but as in the main features of the legend respecting Rå Gârio there is no striking improbability, I would be inclined to assign to Râo Chuḍachand the older date. Râo Chudachand is said to have
[NOVEMBER, 1873.
originated the name Chudâsama, his descendants being called Chuda-Sammâs. Râ Gârio would thus be the second Chuḍâsamâ. Looking also at the antiquity of the Chudâsamâ dynasty, its introduction into Kathiawaḍ at about the middle of the eighth century of the Christian era seems also probable, and this account fits in with the Vâlâ and Gehlot chronicles. However it may be, these legends may, in abler hands than mine, form a connecting link between the era of the Valabhi kings and the consolidation of the Chudasama rule in Saurashtra. A better translation also of the Gujarati verses might throw more light on the subject, and this I doubt not might be furnished by many of the readers of the Antiquary. Possibly, however, the king of Paṭṭan who fought with Ra Khengâr was Mula Raja Solanki. In the account by Kinloch Forbes of Mula Raja's warfare in Saurashtra (see Rás Málá, vol. I. pp. 53 etc. and 154 etc.), quoting from both the Doyashraya and the Prabandh Chintámant, the Lord of Wâmanasthali is described as a Shepherd King, or Ahir Rânâ. Now both Noghan and Khengår might fairly be called by such a name, as Noghan was placed on the throne by the aid of the Áhirs. It will be seen by referring to the Sindhi version of the legend. of Ra Dyas that the account given therein of the cause of quarrel between Anerâi and the Râ is almost exactly the same as the one in the Turi's version quoted by Mr. Forbes. Mr. Forbes represents Lâkhâ Phulâņi to have been slain by Mularâja, but he also mentions that the honour of slaying Lâkhâ has been also claimed by Siñhoji Rathod. It will, I think, be easy to prove that Lâkhâ Phulâņi did not live for upwards of four centuries after Malaraja, and as the descendants of Siñhoji Rathod still enjoy lands in Gujarât, and as the Wâghelâ chronicles show Muluji, the conqueror of Sirdargadh in Kathiawâd, and founder of the Sirdhara Waghelâs, to have been a contemporary of Lakhâ, and that it was Muluji who with Siñhoji Rathod defeated Lakha at Adkot, where Lâkhâ fell by the hand of Siñhoji, it may fairly be inferred that, Lakha was a contemporary of Waghelâ Muluji. Professor Wilson has pointed out (in Bombay Government Records No. XV. New Series) that the era of Lâkhâ Ghurârâ has been antedated by 621 years. This would make the death of Lakhâ, if the Jhâdejâ chronicles be