________________
BITHU INSCRIPTION OF SIHA RATHOD
183
JULY, 1911.]
madans. The latter at last put geru and hiḍmach powder in the lake, which at once changed the colour of the water. Thinking that the colour had so changed because the Muhammadans put cow's flesh into it, the Pallivals at once flung open the city-gate, and sallied forth cutting their way through the Muhammadan ranks. So many of them, it is said, were slain that their sacred threads weighed more than eight maunds. With the Pallival Brahmanas fell many Rajpûts, among whom was Sihâ, son of Seta with his five thousand Rathods.
The points of importance to be noted here are as follows: (1) Pâli was chiefly inhabited by the Pallival Brahmanas and was in the second half of the 18th century held by their Brahmana prince Visahat; (2) Siha Rathod was his minister. This agrees with the Marwâr tradition that Siha was called to Pali and kept there by the Palliväls to give them protection against the Mers and Menâs who had infested them; (3) Sihâ attained to this position in V. S. 1292 A. D 1235; (4) twentysix years after, i.e., in A. D. 1261, Pâli was invaded by the emperor of Delhi, who is here called Nâsuradin and. who cannot but be Nâşiru-d-Din Mahmûd Shâh I., as he reigned from A. D. 1246 to 1266; and (5) after a twelve years' siege Pâll was captured by the Muhammadans in V. S. 1330 A. D. 1273, when Stha Rathod is also represented to have fallen in the battle. This date agrees precisely with that of our inscription. Not only no doubt can thus possibly be entertained . regarding the date of Sihâ's death, but also I feel tempted to accept A. D. 1235 as the date of Siha's arrival in Pâlf. The mention, in the Chhand, of Bundi, Sirohi and the Rajpût tribes Chandel, Pamar and so forth, is undoubtedly an interpolation made in later times by some Bhât, to make it attractive to all the Rajpûts. But the authority for this Chhand is the doha quoted at the end, which thus appears to be much older than the former. It says that in V. S. 1330, a fearful battle took place and the Pallival Brahmanas, after quitting Påll, went towards the west. And our inscription gives the same date for the death of Sihâ. The dohd thus leaves pot even the shadow of a doubt as to Sihâ having died on the battlefield fighting for the Pallivals. Tod's story about this Rathod prince having treacherously massacred the Pallivals and made himself master of Pali must, therefore, be considered to be unfounded and unreliable.
Where actually this battle took place is not certain. Most probably it came off in Bithâ where the memorial stone is found and which is only 14 miles from Pâli. In Bithû there is a very ancient temple dedicated to Mahadeva and in front of it, I am told, there was an old well, now filled up. And the people say that it was into this well that the sacred threads of the Brahmanas were thrown some centuries ago before they died in a fight with the Muhammadans. But no definite information could be had as to who those Brahmanas were and from where the Muhammadans had come. It is, however, all but certain that these Brahmanas were the Pallivals, and that the Muhammadan force was sent by Nâşiru-d-Din Mahmûd Shâh I.
Two points connected with our inscription yet remain to be considered but can be disposed of in a few lines. In the latter portion of it one Pârvati, a So(la)mk (ni) [Solankini] is said to have died safi with Sihâ. The reading Solamkni, I confess, is by no means certain, though it is probable. But supposing for the moment that it is correct, it agrees with the tradition that he had for his queen a Solankini. But her name, as given in the chronicles, is Rajala-de, whereas we have it here as Pârvati. Perhaps she had both the names, of which Râjala-de was a khitab given by her busband as is not unfrequently the case in Rajputânâ. Secondly, it is worthy of note that neither Sthâ nor his father Seta has any regal titles attached to their names in our inscription, though the people of Mârwâr always speak of Siha as Râv Siya-ji. He appears to have been a mere Rajpût in the service of the Pallival Brahmanas without having ever risen even to the rank of a Râv. Seta, again, is called a kamvara, which shows that he was at any rate a son of some chief or king. This agrees with the tradition that he was a son of Jayachandra, king of Kanauj. But as he died without obtaining the kingdom, he also had no royal titles affixed to his name.
