________________
No. 26.]
RATAUL PLATE OF CĦAHADADEVA.
223
Hagan Nizami in his Tāju-l-Maāsir states that Prithviraja had a very able son who, after his father's execution, was appointed to the government of Ajmer. The Hammira-Mahākāvya, which according to Kirtane contains a historic narrative from Prithvirāja to Hammira, makes Hariraja the successor of Přithvirāja at Ajmer, though it is not apparent how he was related to him. In the dynastic table extracted from the Prithiviraja-vijaya by Mr. Morison, Hariraja appears as the younger brother of Pșithvirāja. No son of the latter seems to be recorded in this poem.
We see from what has been said above that the surviving portion of the inscription supplies no clue as, to the place of Chahadadēva in the Chūhamina pedigree. Nor do the Sanskrit poems referred to in the preceding paragraph mention his name. It is true that in the genealogical tree of the Chahamāna tribe published by Tod, Chāhadadēva (spelt Chahirdeo) is shown as the younger brother of Prithviraja. But as Tod's account of the Chahamănas is based on the Prithviraja Rāsā which has been proved to be a forgery, we cannot accept this information as correct unless it is supported by some more reliable source. For the present, the question must remain an open one.
There is one thing, however, about this prince which seems to be fairly certain, namely, that he is in all probability the same as the ruler of that name who flourished at Narwar (ancient Nalapura) in Gwalior State in the first half of the 13th century A.D. We shall examine the evidence in the following paragraphs.
General Cunningham has shown from an inscription discovered by him in the ancient fort of Narwar that the rulers of that place included a line of five chiefs the last of whom, Ganapati, was reigning in 1298 A.D. (Vikrama Samvat 1355). The genealogy of this family opens with Chahadadēva, whose coins bear dates Vikrama Samvat 1295 to 1311 (A.D. 1255). There is, however, an earlier ruler named Malayavarmadēva whose name figures in pumismatic works under the Narwar family. His coins bear dates Samvat 1280, 1283 and 1290 and have been found at Narwar, Gwalior and Jhansi. Gen. Cunningham was of opinion that Malayavarmadēva was a ruler of Narwar but that he belonged to a different dynasty and was ejected from Narwar, by Chahadadēva who was consequently the founder of the abovementioned family of Narwar.
Now, as the Chāhamāna Chāhadadēva of the inscription under review flourished just about this time, if we are to judge from the type of characters used in it, I am inclined to think that the founder of the Narwar family was no other than his namesake of the Chabamāna tribe. When precisely Chāhadadēva or his family migrated to Narwar, cannot yet be determined. It may have happened after the downfall of Prithvirāja when his followers escaped from Delhi and Ajmer in large numbers. The Muhammadan historians tell us very little about this period. But we learn from the Hammira-Mahakāvya that not long after the defeat of Prithviraja the Chāhamanas were turned out of Ajmer, when they retired to Ranathambhor, which continued in their possession until Hammira-dēva was slain and the town captured by Alau-ddin in 1299 A.D.7 It is surprising that the Hammira-Mahākāvya, as it exists, 8 does not
Elliott, History of India, Vol. II, p. 216. According to Tod (Rajasthan, II, p. 451) Prithvirāja bad son by name Rainsi who was slain in the battle with Shahāba-d-din.
Ind. Ant., Vol. VIII, pp. 61-62. Rajasthan, II, p. 461. : Journal of Beng. As. Soc., Vol. LV, Part I, pp. 5 ff. • Archeological Survey of India, Reports, Vol. II, p. 815, and Ind. Ant., Vol. XXII, p. 81.
Cunaingham, Coins of Medieval India, pp. 92-93 and Pl. X.
• Later, Cunningham changed his opinion and declared that Malaya may have belonged to the same family. The latter view seems to me to be unlikely.
7 This last event is narrated by Muhammadan historians in detail. Ct. Tärika-t-Firoz Shah in Elliott, History of India, Vol. III, pp. 171-179.
. Mr. Kirtane made his analysis from a copy which is dated in Vikrama Samvat 1542, 1.6., 186 years after the death of Hammira.
