Indian Antiquary Vol 41

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 187

BOOK-NOTICES
JULY, 1912.]
were settled in the central and southern parts of Rajputânâ. After defeating the Málavas, Ushavadata, we are told, went to Pushkar. The word actually used is Poksharani, the plural and not singular of Pushkara,-a point not noticed by Mr. Sarda as he ought to have done. Even to this day, not one or two, but three, Pushkaras are known-jyeshtha, madhya, and kanishtha, all situated within a circuit of six miles. Ushavadata again is represented to have bathed there and given three thousand cows and a village to the Brahmanas. This shows that even in the first century A. D. Pushkar was a centre of Brahmanism. Mr. Sarda has also referred to the inscription of king Durgaraja, found at Pushkar, a summary of which has been published by me in the Ann. Prog. Report West. Circle for 1910, p. 59. But he is not correct in saying that A. D. 925 is the date of the king furnished by the inscription. It really gives two dates: (1) A. D. 925 for the grant of Malbana, and (2) A.D. 933 for the confirmation of it by Durgaraja.
The author has also narrated some of the interesting and important legends connected with Pushkar. One of these is of the Paḍihâr king Nahad-14v, who bathed here and was cured of leprosy. This Nahad-ráv figures greatly in the Mârwâr legends also. The question arises: who was this Nabad-rav? Mr. Sarda apparently takes him to be Nagabhața II. of the imperial Pratihara dynasty. But I think that he is in all likelihood Nagabhata of the feudatory Pratihâra family, that reigned at Mandor and Mertâ. There is no legend about Nâhad råv anywhere in Rajputânâ beyond Ajmer and Mârwar. Jina" prabhasûri in his tirthakalpa speaks of Nahadrav as king of Mandor. This shows that he cannot belong to the imperial dynasty which reigned at Kanauj. The Ghatiyâlâ inscription again says that he established himself at Medantaka (Merta). And as Mertâ is not far of off from Pushkar, this explains why legend has associated his name with this sacred place. About the end of this chapter Mr. Sarda gives us the interesting information that the town of Pushkar is divided into two parts: (1) Chhoti Basti and (2) Badi Basti and that the Brahmans of the former allege that the Brahmans of the latter are not true Brahmans but are Sâkadvipi Brahmans or Magas (Magii of Persia) and that they began to call themselves Parâsara Brahmans after having been admitted into the fold of Brahmanism, This, it is said, was discovered by Raja Jai Singh II. of Jaipur himself.
Chapter XIV. gives both the ancient and modern history of Ajmer in a very lucid manner.
183
So far as the former is concerned, the author seems to have been guided by Pandit Gauri Shankar Ojha, though not without independent judgment. Thus, instead of Jayadeva, Mr. Sarda has Ajnyapâla, as the son of Sâmantadeva and regards him as the founder of Ajmer, and not Ajayaraja, son of Prithviraja I, as Pandit Gauri Shankar does. In very few other respects the author's account differs from that of Mr. Ojha given in his Hindi translation of Tod's Rajasthan. Both make the first four kings of the dynastic list, connected with one another as father and son. But no authority is cited by either. So far as our knowledge, goes, this relationship is not supported by any published records or accounts. The reference to the coins of Ajayadeva and Somaladevi is interesting, as they have not yet been recognised by the numismatists. A paper on this subject will soon appear in this journal. Some inscriptions describe Chohans as belonging to the solar and some to the lunar dynasty. Amongst the latter Mr. Sarda includes the Hânsi inscription of A. D. 1167. But this is a mistake, for this record in no place even hints that the Chohâns belonged to the lunar race (above Vol XLI. p. 17 ff.). Again, Mr. Sarda says: "whether they belong to the solar or the lunar race, they assuredly do not belong to the Agnikula, as they now wrongly claim to do." But if some records say that Chohans were Suryavamasi and some that they were Somavamhsis, there is no reason why there should not be other records calling them Agnikulis and why therefore these records should be set aside. The truth of the matter is that a Rajput tribe with a foreign origin was always in need of such a pedigree when it became Hinduised, and its divisions, often separated from one another by great distances, traced their descents separately, some from the sun, some from the moon, some from the fire, and some from the earth.
The book is not without a few misprints, but considering the haste in which it had to be printed they are few. There is, however, a mistake which is not so excusable. The name of the late Prof. Kielhorn is everywhere spelt Keilhorn and not Kielhorn as it ought to be.
I have thus touched upon the points where difference from the author's views is possible, but in other respects it is impossible to disagree with him, and such points are by no means few. The reader, in fact, cannot leave the book aside without being impressed that it is in every way a very useful and valuable production.
D. R. B.