Indian Antiquary Vol 56

SR No.: 032548
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1986
Total Pages: 286
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 13 MB

Page 198

12
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ SEPTEMBER, 1927
"But though I deem it morally impossible that the Ranas should have their lineage from any male branch of the Persian house, I would not equally assert that Mahabanu, the fugitive daughter of Yazdegird, may not have found a husband, as well as sanctuary, with the prince of Saurashtra ; and she may be the Subhagna (mother of Siladitya), whose mysterious amour with the 'sun' compelled her to abandon her native city of Kaira. The son of Marian had been in Saurashtra, and it is therefore not unlikely that her grand-child should there seek protection in the reverses of her family."
Such is Col. Tod's account of the princes of Mewâr. It is needless to discuss every passage in his writings. A few facts only will suffice.
As regards the sack of Valabhi, the Satrunjaya Mahatmya on which Tod relies seems to have been written in or later than the twelfth century A.D., for; it contains an account of the ruler Kumârapâla (1142 to 1173 A.D.) of Gujarât. It, therefore, does not appear very reliable. Secondly, the inscription, the unexpected discovery of which is spoken of by the author, is really the Bejolyân inscription, dated Samvat 1226 (A.D. 1169), of the time of Somêsvara, which speaks of the Chauhâna king Visaladêva IV of Ajmer, whose fame is said to have spread even in the streets and turrets (Valabhi) after his conquest of the territory extending as far as Delhi and Hansi in the Punjab.
Lastly, the discovery of the Sâmôli inscription of Sîlâditya of Mewâr, dated Samvat 703 (A.D. 646) finally settles the matter. From the Alînâ copper plate inscription, dated A.D. 766 of the last Šilâditya of Valabhipur, we know that he was the ruler of the Valabhi kingdom at least up to the date of the inscription, i.e., the latter half of the eighth century A.D. The final overthrow10 of that kingdom must have taken place later on, in or about A.D. 776. As the date of Silâditya of Mewâr is Samvat 703 (A.D. 646), that of Guhadatta, his fifth11 predecessor, should fall in the latter half of the sixth century A.D., assigning an average rule of at least twenty years to each ruler. Thus Guhadatta, the founder of the Guhila dynasty of Mewâr, had established his rule in Mewâr long before the break up of the Valabhi kingdom. Hence, it is impossible to call Gôha or Guhadatta a descendant of Śîlâditya VI. or VII.12 of Valabhipur.
Next, we have to consider the connection of the Rânâs with Persia. It may be noted that in the second century A.D., Saurashtra (Kâțhiâvâd) was under the Western Kshatrapas13 and not under Kanaksen, as Tod asserts. Nôshirwân Adil ascende i the throne of Persia in September 532 A.D., and, after a glorious reign of about forty eight years, died in February 579 A.D. His son Noshizâd hearing that his father was seriously ill, rebelled about 551 A.D. He was, however, not executed, but merely rendered ineligible for the throne by a slight facial disfigurement. Yazdegird was the last sovereign of the House of Sassan, a dynasty which ruled Persia four hundred and fifty years. He was defeated by the Arabs in the battle of Nahavand (A.D. 641) and was afterwards murdered in the neighbourhood of Merv in 651 or 652 A.D. After the overthrow of the Persian empire, the family of Yazd gird escaped with their lives and sought a safer refuge in the fortress of Haft-Ajar, the home of their ancestors. One daughter Meher Bânu (Maha Bânu) sought and
Tod, Rajasthan, edited by W. Crooke, 1920, vol. I, pp. 275-80.
7 See Ind. Ant., vol. LVI, p. 11, n. 12. The word valabhi in the inscription has no connection whatever with the town of Valabhi in Kathiâvad. See Tod's Rajasthan, vol. III, p. 1798.
8 Preserved in the Rajputânâ Museum, Ajmer.
• Fleet's Gupta Inscriptions, p. 171. 10 Tod, Rajasthan, vol. I, p. 254, n. 2. Duff's Chronology, p. 67. 11 Ind. Ant., vol. XXXIX, p. 188, Inscription No. IV.
12 Dr. Fleet designates Siladitya VI. as Siladitya VII. In fact, Siladitya II. of his table did not ascend the throne, hence silâditya VII. in the table ought to be Silâditya VI. See Gupta Inscriptions, p. 41, (Preface).
13 Rudradama was the ruler then, as shown by his inscriptions, dated Saka Samvata 52 or A.D. 130 (Ep. Ind., vol. 16, p. 23), and 72 or A.D. 150 (Ep. Ind., vol. 8, p. 36).