Imprints Of A Sultanate Ecology In The Prithviraj Raso.docx

1

Imprints of a Sultanate ecology in the Prthvīrāj Rāso An alternate reading of a narrative of warrior kingship Arjun Bhattacharya MPhil, University of Delhi

The Prithviraj Raso continues to remain one of the most significant pieces of literary productions which have been identified as representing the dominant worldviews of a category of regional elites in pre-modern times, the Rajputs. As heterogeneous in nature, as the social category of the Rajput was in pre-modern times, the text held a particularly important position among the Rajput elites of Rajasthan. Yet the text has barely received the attention of historians it deserves even as it remains very crucial to the scholars of Hindi literature. Most of the historiography revolving around this text has been either entangled in the binary of epic and counter-epic1 or has been more focused on the memory of the person of Prithviraj Chauhan, the protagonist of the Raso.2 No attempt has been made to place the text in a historical context and deconstruct its narrative. This paper is an endeavor in that direction.

The raso or rasau literature of Rajasthan is a genre of poetry which is biographical or historical in nature and is typically pervaded with the vir rasa or heroic sentiment.3 Keeping this in mind the raso can be seen as a long martial narrative in Pingal with Prithviraj Chauhan as its 1

Aziz Ahmad’s, Epic and Counter-Epic in Medieval India, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 83(1963), pp 470-476. 2 Cynthia Talbot, The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj Chauhan and the Indian Past, 1200-2000 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016). 3 Ibid, p 61,

2

chief protagonist. The author of this text has been identified as Chand Bardai, whom different scholars have identified either as a contemporary of Prithviraj and a Charan in his court or have placed him in a later period. Some scholars have also propounded the possibility of authorship of some of its later verses to the descendants of Bardai. However despite these differences, the authorship of this text has been attributed to the community of the Charans who can be seen as the litterateurs of the vernacular languages in the region of Rajasthan. This question of authorship is also integrally related to the issue of dating the text. Many scholars of Hindi literature have put forth the date of the text to be very close to the period of Prithviraj Chauhan in the 12th and 13th century, while many others have traced it as late as the 17th century. The shortest (laghutam) and short (laghu) recensions have been identified to be of an earlier date than the medium (madhyam) and long (brhad) recensions.4 However due to the several evidences available within and outside the text, historians have identified the text to be an essentially 16th century work, compounded by the fact that the earliest extant manuscript appeared in 1610 where it was being disseminated not just among the regional elites of Rajasthan but also in the imperial Mughal court.5

In the Raso, Prithviraj is depicted as the son of the ruler of Ajmer (Someshwar) and the daughter of the king of Delhi, Anangapal Tomar. Anangapal chooses his grandson Prithviraj as his successor to his Delhi throne because of his lack of a male offspring. Jaichand of Kanauj is shown as another great ksatriya sovereign who intends to hold a royal consecration ceremony or yagya to demonstrate his sovereignty, along with the swayamvara or marriage ceremony of his

4 5

Ibid, Appendix: Prithviraj Raso’s textual history, pp 277-290 Ibid, p 70

3

daughter Sanyogita. Prithviraj by defeating an army of Jaichand repudiates his claim to greatness. Prithviraj gets to know that Sanyogita had fallen in love with him and was adamant to only marry him. Prithviraj along with his several ksatriya samants decide to reach Kanauj where he successfully elopes with Sanyogita. Although Prithviraj and his samants succeed in defeating Jaichand’s army it comes at the price of a loss of a very large number of his brave samant warriors. The next few months pass as Prithviraj and Sanyogita experience true love and the protagonist remains stooped in the pursuit of bodily pleasures. As a result he ignores his kingly duties and is brought back to his senses by his bard Chand Bardai only when the threat of the invading army of Shihabuddin Ghori becomes imminent. Prithviraj manages to gather a much weakened and numerically inferior army and a result loses the battle against Ghori, in the process of which he is also martyred. Sanyogita along with the several wives of Prithviraj commit Sati which marks the end of the narrative.6

The narrative of the Prithviraj Raso constructs a discourse of ideal warrior kingship, rooting itself on a ksatriya based norms of conduct. These martial norms derive their sustainance from their projected ability and duty (in the text) to protect and preserve a brahmanically conceived society. Within this context Prithviraj Chauhan is depicted as the archetypical ksatriya king who rules over a large part the subcontinent (the text shows his reach as far as the Deccan in the south and shores of the east, possibly Bengal or Orrisa). The text uses several imperial titles such as Aryaraj, Hindvan Sirtaj and Sambharpati to further buttress his claims to sovereignty. In his endeavor he is supported by his samants/vassals who belong to the various Chand Bardai, Prthvīrāja Rāso, edited by Dr Manoharsingh Ranavat (Jodhpur: Rajasthani Granthagar, 2013), 4 Vols, translated into Hindi by Kavirav Mohansingh (Udaipur: Sahitya Sansthan 1954). 6

4

ksatriya lineages. The narrative emphasizes their critical and selfless service through its discourse on ksatriya dharma or the various attributes of a ksatriya-like conduct and its taboos. An integral part of this conduct is what the text identifies as swami dharma or the selfless and loyal service to one’s lord. As the narrative progresses, the reader is acquainted with the major opponents of Prithviraj Chauhan, namely Bhora Bhim Chalukya of Gujarat, Shihabuddin Ghori of Ghazni and Jaichand of Kanauj. Most of the encounters between Prithviraj and these antagonists are marked by military conflicts where Prithviraj prevails. However Jaichand is depicted as an equal to Prithviraj and this equality largely lies in the fact that the text at the very beginning established kinship ties between his and Jaichand’s lineages (Chauhans and Gahdavalas respectively), as their fathers married with the daughters of Anangapal Tomar of Delhi.7 The fact that Prithviraj and Jaichand are cousins is never emphasized in the text directly. Keeping this aspect in mind the conflict between Prithviraj and Jaichand can be seen as a larger fratricidal struggle to control the clan networks of the Chauhan-Gahdavalas-Tomars. A major means through which Prithviraj Chauhan breaks out of this equality with Jaichand is through that of marriage, as he elopes with Sanyogita, Jaichand’s daughter. In fact marriage in the Raso narrative emerges as a very important means of establishing claims to unconquered and rival domains as well as a device to project superior attributes of ksatriya/warrior kingship vis-à-vis other rival claimants from other ksatriya lineages.

However one particular aspect which the reader needs to be attentive of while approaching the Raso, is to how the narrative constructs its binaries of self-identification vis-à-vis the others. How it textures the dichotomy of us and them. A careful reading would indicate that no such 7

Ibid, Aadi Katha, Vol 1, p 67

5

binary exists between the ksatriyas/Rajputs whom the narrative claims to represent and the Turks/Mlechchas/Yavanas. Several instances indicate towards a rather porous conception of ksatriyaness/Rajputness. Thus Hussain, who took refuge in Prithviraj’s court while escaping the wrath of his cousin Shihabuddin, becomes a ksatriya on his death in the battle with Shihabuddin as his beloved performs sati.8 Similarly non-ksatriya social groups such as the Yadavas of Deogir9 and Mungal, the ruler of Mewat10 establish kinship ties with the Chauhans through the means of marriage. Similarly the Turks are shown participating in the martial rituals of Jalandhar Devi side by side with the ksatriyas.11 Having said that, the text is not free of rigid binaries.

Unlike the Turks or the Chalukyas who are denigrated with religious or socio-culturally textured polemics only when they threaten the brahmanically conceived society and its values which the protagonist of the text endeavours to protect, there is another social group/groups which remain a perennial subject of denigration and scorn in the narrative irrespective of the context. They stand as the diametric opposite of the four fold varna hierarchy which the protagonist of the narrative aims to protect and preserve.

They are the unruly social groups such as the Meos/Mewatis, Bhils, Meenas and Jats. These groups are depicted to be unruly and uncouth and are often shown to inhabit the forested and hilly fringes of Prithviraj’s dominions and as inhabitants of such a marginalized ecological

8

Ibid, Hussain Katha, Vol 1, pp 242-265 Ibid, Shashivrata, Vol 2, pp 187-300 10 Ibid, Pundir Dahimi Vivah, Vol 1, pp 327-332 11 Ibid, Dhir Pundir, Vol 4, p 313 9

6

landscape are labeled with terms such as the mewas, mewasi, mawasam and mawasani. This civilizational discourse is evident from the following two passages: The brave started roaring on mountain tops. Beauty started emanating from the faces of young boys and girls. The four varnas started experiencing contentment. The Mewasis12 were terrorized. The homes of the wickeds were sacked. The recalcitrant and obstinate were punished. Noble people were placed to establish stability in the different parts of the kingdom. The earth trembled due to roars in all directions. Lowly people were crushed for the sake of their enoblement and this is how Prithviraj, son of Someshwar, the invincible champion, acquired the demon incarnation and descended (succeeded).13 Where there was a valley between two hills and where the Meena, Mer and Meo people (jati) lived, there the hill chief who even frightened the invincible warriors decided to defend Nahar Rai… The defenders of the pride of Nahar Rai, the kingdom of the Pratiharas, like armour for their lord, invincible in battle, the destroyer of the land of mewasis, whom they killed and captured their animals; were ready to show their resolve. These brave men positioned themselves over trees and boulders and waited like venomous snakes for Chauhan. Prithviraj was informed that Meenas are manly and don’t give up. They had positioned themselves on the hills. Now who would go to face them?14

Here the binary between the nobility of the four fold varna hierarchy and the recalcitrance of these hill people is evident. Interestingly the term mewasi is used for the inhabitants of this terrain. Not only is this term phonetically close to the term mawas, found in the Sultanate texts such as the Tabaqat-i Nasiri, but is even similar in descriptive terms. A mawas was a tract or district which was a sort of sanctuary or place of refuge on account of the physical features

12

The term used here in the Pingal text is Mewase which the Hindi translator translates as Mewatis or jungle tribes. Vol 1, Dilli Killi Katha, p 125, tran from Hindi 13 Ibid 14 Ibid, Vol 1, Nahar Rai Katha, pp 167-168, tran from Hindi

7

which made it a natural fastness.15 It generally comprised of hills and forests which provided adequate protection and fortifications to the recalcitrant chiefs and formed part of the pastoral ecology. At the same time it also comprised of an agrarian-riverine core which sustained the fortifications of the hilly/forested tracts. This definition of Hodivala comes very close to the description of the mewas in the Raso, particularly with the text’s emphasis on the hills, its hill chiefs, boulders, trees and forests. Not only does the narrative denigrate the inhabitants of the mawas as unreliable but also uses the depiction of Prithviraj’s ability to suppress the mawas as a means to further enhance his claims to kingship.

Such an approach of hostility towards the inhabitants of this particular ecology is very close to the treatment of this landscape in the Sultanate texts such as the Tabaqat. Qutlugh Khan in the Tabaqat becomes mutawattinan or ‘native’ when he joins hands with the ruler of the mawas, Rana Ranbal of Sirmur.16 This hostility towards them needs to be seen in the context of a newly established Muslim community under the aegis of the Delhi Sultanate, in northern India still surrounded by several social and religious groups that carried significant threat towards them. A similar hostility is directed towards Nahar Rai in the Raso when he after refusing to marry his daughter to Prithviraj flees and takes refuge in the mawas/mewas. Although he does not become a mutawattinan, Prithviraj goes on to completely annihilate his forces as well as the

This has been cited from Sunil Kumar’s unpublished article provisionally titled as ‘[And] he proceeded into the mawas’: Reconsidering the inhospitable environs of Sultanate settlement, ca 13-14th centuries. Kumar quotes the above mentioned lines from S.H Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History: A Critical Commentary on Elliot and Dowson’s History ,(Bombay: Popular Book Depot, 1939), Vol 1, p 226 16 Ibid, pp 6-7 15

8

inhabitants of the mawas who defend him. Nahar Rai is defeated and subordinated as he is finally compelled to give his daughter in marriage to Prithviraj.17

It needs to be repeated that the Prithviraj Raso has been identified as a 16th century text based on evidences both internal and external to it. In fact recent historiography has put forth that it developed and flourished very much within the larger context of the Mughal empire, not in isolation nor in opposition to it.18 But regardless of this identification some questions need to asked.

Why is the author of the Raso which has been identified as a 16th century text referring to a past model of Sultanate governance based on an ecological binarization of those who were the agents of the Sultanate and those who were against or outside its scope or more specifically in the context of the Raso between those who were part of a brahmanically conceived society and those who were its abhorrent others? Why does the narrative borrow from not just a brahmanically conceived idea of warrior kingship but also from a model of Sultanate governance which was based on providing leadership of the Sultan to a newly established Muslim community which was threatened by several social groups of northern India, such as the inhabitants of the mawas and very subtly and organically fuses the two ideas?

17 18

Chand Bardai, Prthvīrāja Rāso , pp 159-186 Cynthia Talbot, The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj Chauhan and the Indian Past, 1200-2000, p 72

9

Such a hybrid conceptualization of kingship is absent in the Rajput narratives of the 15th century such as the Kanhadade Prabandha and the Hammira Mahakavya and neither does this model of universal kingship based on an idea of socio-cultural exclusivity find resonance in the Mughal texts of the late 16th century, such as the Akbarnama and the Ain where a larger picture of inclusivity textured by the ideas of sulh-i kul is projected. In fact the term mawas hardly appears in any of the Mughal documents (with the exception of a few letters) and is totally absent in Abul Fazl’s Akbarnama and the Ain.

The term mawas for the Mughals meant

rebellious territories which did not pay revenues, but it hardly carried the social stigmas that the texts of an earlier era had labeled it with.19

What becomes amply clear is that the author of the text was aware of and had access to the Sultanate chronicles in the 16th century. This is reflected not just in his utilization of the mawas to enhance Prithviraj’s claims of warrior kingship but also in some other aspects. The various marriages of Prithviraj with spatially dispersed lineages conjure up a geography reminiscent of the Sultanate era. Therefore Prithviraj establishes ties with lineages embedded in places such as Deogir, Bayana, Mewat and Girnar, towns that were projected as critically important for the Sultanate in its 14th and 15th century chronicles. The fact that such a text could be conceived only at this point, that is the 16th century, needs to ventured more deeply and carefully. Arguments such as the text having developed within the context of the Mughal empire and not in

Refer to Abu al-Fazl, Ā’īn-i Akabarī, tran by H.S. Jarrett (Delhi, Low Price Publications, 1989, reprint 2014), 3 vols. Also the footnotes of Irfan Habib’s, The Agrarian System of Mughal India, 1556-1707, (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, Second Revised Edition, 1999), p 379; has been instructive in this regard. In fact the term mawas has been hardly used in Mughal historiography as an analytical term to understand the process of the Mughal state formation. The only exception to this has been Jos Gommans, Mughal Warfare: Indian Frontiers and High Roads to Empire, 1500-1700 (London: Routledge, 2002). 19

10

opposition or isolation to it, becomes superficial and problematic because as it tries to salvage the text out of Aziz Ahmad’s binary of epic and counter-epic, it ends up seamlessly integrating the Prithviraj Raso within the larger discourse of Mughal kingship which culminated in the Akbarnama. This is indicative of a larger historiographical problem where too much centrality has been assigned to texts such as the Akbarnama in order to understand not just facets of Mughal governance but also the dissemination of ideas of kingship from the imperial court to the courts of regional elites. As a result attempts to approach aspects of an essentially Rajput/Ksatriya kingship in the Mughal period gets textured by a looming shadow of a Mughal imperial milieu.20 But what is often forgotten is that these norms of Rajput kingship among these regional elites, most among whom also served in the Mughal court, were embedded in textual and inscriptional productions that post-dated the Akbarnama and therefore seemed to seamlessly appropriate various aspects of a Mughal imperial vision. But what about a text such as the Prithviraj Raso which talks about ideas of Ksatriya kingship, but also essentially predates the Akbarnama? The fact that the Raso predates the Akbarnama is not a major point in itself. But when placing the Raso in a 16th century milieu where textures of a past Sultanate political culture were considered compatible with Brahmanically conceived notions of warrior kingship, by the author of a vernacular text for regional elites, a more complex picture of the milieu emerges. Then what exactly is this Mughal context at this particular temporal cross-section which predates the dominant Mughal ideology of kingship which gained roots only after the compilation and

20

This is reflected in several works such as Dirk Kolff, Naukar, Rajput and Sepoy: The ethnohistory of the military labour market in Hindustan, 1450-1850 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Norman Ziegler, Action, Power and Service in Rajasthani Culture: A Social history of the Rajputs of Middle Period Rajasthan, Unpublished PhD Dissertation (University of Chicago, Illinois, 1973); Ramya Sreenivasan, Rethinking Kingship and Authority in South Asia: Amber (Rajasthan), ca. 1560-1615, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 57 (2014) pp 549-586.

11

proliferation of the Akbarnama? The Mughals without doubt tapped into the epic narrative of the Raso and co-opted it as evident from its compilation in the Mughal court which came out only a few years after the Akbarnamna. But it was precisely because the Raso epic narrative existed much prior to that in some form or the other and was significant for the regional elites of Rajasthan that it garnered the Mughal attention. The Raso then represents a temporal landscape where a distinct idea of kingship could be developed, where borrowing from a past Sultanate political culture was possible. This borrowing however was happening very much in a Mughal context, a context where the dominant ideas of Mughal kingship, that were to entrench themselves firmly in the next few centuries, were still taking shape. It was a context which did not just smoothly transition into a notion Mughal kingship based on the idea of sulh-i kul. It was a context of negotiations and engagements with differing and distinct ideas of kingship, of regional elites, which could still tap on to the political culture of the Sultanate past. This was a context where the regional elites of Rajasthan with their own distinct notions of kingship rooted in the political culture of the past centuries were beginning to engage with another social group and political dispensation which was harbouring imperial ambitions over northern India and was also attempting to reformulate their own notions and norms of kingship for the same purpose.