Nadol Cahamänas : Structure of Rajput Polity in 12Th-Century Rajasthan

27 ■ Article ■ Land Distribution and Kinship of the Nadol Cahamänas : Structure of Rajput Polity in 12th-Century Rajasthan ● Masahiko Mita Introduction Land distribution among the ruling clan members has been considered a system peculiar to Rajput polity, and often taken as a unique point of Rajput "feudalism" by many scholars since J. Tod [Tod 1829, vol. 1: 153-245; Saran 1952; Banerjee 1962; etc.]. The most vivid picture of this clan land distribution system was pre- sented by G. D. Sharma who analysed a territorial system of the Marwar kingdom of the Rathors in the 16th century. The system was called bhai-bant, in which the territory of the kingdom was divided and distributed among the ruling clan members, and they were allowed to inherit their own land as far as they accepted the sovereignty of their clan chief.1) In the early medieval Rajput kingdoms, too, land distribution to the royal kinsmen can be found, and they formed one of the intermediary strata politically and economically positioned between the 三田昌彦 Masahiko Mita, School of Letters, Nagoya University, Early medieval history of north India Article: "Paddy Production in the Middle Gangetic Basin (from 6th Century B.C. to 3rd Century A.D.)",Journal of Oriental History, Nagoya University, vol. 16, pp. 1-30. (in Japanese) 28 Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, 8, 1996 kings and villages. The Nadol Cahamanas in 12th-century Marwar has often been taken as its typical case by many historians [R. S. Sharma 1980: 143-45; Gopal 1963-64: 86-103; Yadava 1973: 144- 145; Chattopadhyaya 1976: 71-72; Sudan 1989: 127-28; etc.]. Generally speaking, they seem to tend to consider it the origin of the traditional clan system of Rajputs and the early medieval Rajput kingdoms as "clan monarchies" without detailed compari- son between the early medieval polity of Rajputs and the late medieval one [typically, Banerjee 1962: 48-49]. However, the Nadol Cahamana system is different from bhai-bant in the 16th century, which will be revealed in this short paper. Probably, such lack of comparative analyses is a reflection of the gap in the studies between the two periods and the tendency of studies of early medieval history to try to understand only the historical processes from the ancient or the Gupta period up to the 12th century and not beyond that.2) This short paper is a case study of the structure of the early medieval Rajput polity, and the purpose of study here is to understand the relation between the kinship system and the land distribution in the context of the structure of Nadol Cahamana polity in the 12th century, and to present a sample indicating the historical stage of early medieval polity of Rajputs in the historical processes of medieval Rajasthan by comparing it with the late medieval polity. However, the epigraphical records of the Nadol Cahamanas, though relatively rich among the contemporary dynasties in north India, are not sufficient to draw a complete picture of the polity. Hence, this paper can only present a tentative hypothesis. The Nadol Cahamana kingdom was founded in the last quarter of the 10th century by Laksmarja who, a son of Vakpatiraja of the S akambhari Cahamanas, had branched off from the main family. From that date onwards the kingdom lasted more than two hundred years until it declined and fell through the battles against the Muslim armies of Muhammad Ghori towards the end of the 12th century or the beginning of the 13th century. The territory of the Land Distribution and Kinship of the Nadol Cahamanas 29 kingdom occupied the southern parts of modern Pali and Jodhpur districts, which can be said to have been of small or medium size in early medieval India. Situated in the northern-most part of an area to which political influence of the Caulukyas of Gujarat extended, 30 Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, 8, 1996 the Nadol Cahamanas did not always enjoy their independence, but they temporarily came under the Caulukya's suzerainty in the 12th century. Thus the Nadol Cahamana kingdom is not merely an example of small- or medium-sized kingdoms of early medieval Rajputs, but at the same time an interesting example of the subordinate kingdoms of the Gujarat empire as well. Although the Nadol Cahamanas have a long history of more than two hundred years, the available inscriptions are limited to the period between V.S. 1147 (A.D. 1091) and V.S. 1251 (arround A.D. 1194).3) Therefore, the period of our analysis is limited to the 12th century. 1. Titles of Intermediary Strata and Their Hierarchy In the Nadol Cahamana kingdom, there were various grades of intermediary strata which, lying between the king and villagers, enjoyed the revenues from villages. Their existence can be seen from the following three patterns of expression in the inscriptions, most of which are the documents of the grants made to temples and brahmanas. i) Their existence can be inferred from the term bhokty, which means "enjoyer" [of town or village revenue] and a variety of expressions like svabhujyamana (being enjoyed as one's own), bhujyamana (being enjoyed) and bhukti (enjoyment or enjoyed territory). ii) Tax, tolls and other various cesses of certain villages were granted by particular persons, who can be considered as intermediary strata. iii) In the inscriptions there are some ex- amples of certain people carrying out local rule from certain towns or villages as their political bases. These people also should be considered as such strata, because assignees of villages usually rule over assigned villages and their neighbouring areas, as will be mentioned later. Table 1 represents the intermediary strata in the Nadol Cahamana kingdom composed on the basis of these three criteria.4) Most of the intermediaries figured in the inscriptions had their own titles. In early medieval India, various kinds of titles were Land Distribution and Kinship of the Nadol Cahamänas 31 employed by ruling strata ranging from the "emperors", followed by many subordinate kings, to pitty rulers who ruled over just one village. In the case of the Nadol Cahamanas, it is believed that the kings employed maharizjadhiraja (lit., lord of maharajas) when they enjoyed independence, and maharaja when subject to the overlord, the Caulukyas of Gujarat.5) The other various ruling strata employed a great variety of titles as shown in Table 1. These may be classified into two broad groups in terms of their meanings: i) administrative titles or official posts like baladhipa (leader of the army), mahasahaniya (chief military officer), bhancjarin (officer in charge of the treasury), talara (city police), Mandavyapuradhipati (ruler of Mandavyapura) and Palladhipa (ruler of Palla), all of which indicate specific roles in the state administration, and ii) the titles of status or ranking which do not indicate any particular roles but probably political and social status, i.e., kumara (heir-apparent), rajaputra, rajni (queen), rauta, thakkura, ranaka, etc.6) Fur- ther, the administrative titles can be classified into two groups, that is, those which indicate special works, i.e., baladhipa, bhandarin, etc., and those of < place name + adhipa[ti]> which indicate the posts of the lords or governors of particular villages and territories. Table 1 shows that the royal kinsmen have only status titles with one exception, Mandavyapuradhipati. Among them yuvaraja or kumara is of course heir-apparent of the king, ordinarily the eldest son of the reigning king, as is evident from the inscription of V.S. 1218.7) Except for this heir-apparent and rajnis, all other royal kinsmen have the titles of rajaputras and maharizjaputras. Rajaputra, in the sense of the word itself, is "a son of the king". This term, however, is commonly considered an original form or a Sanskritized form of "Rajput". The title rajaputra was not only conferred on the sons of the kings in the Nadol Cahamäna kingdom. In the Bamnera copper plates rajaputra Ajayasimha (No. 14) was mentioned as the son of maharizjaputra Kumarasimha, and not the son of the reigning kings Alhana in V.S. 1220 and Kelhana in 1223. Rizjaputra Lakhanapala 32 Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, 8, 1996 Land Distribution and Kinship of the Nadol Cdhamanas 33 34 Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, 8, 1996 and rajaputra Abhayapala (No. 21) were not sons of the king Kelhana but of his younger brother maharajaputra Kirtipala. Reijaputra does not seem to be employed in the sense of "Rajput" , either. In Table 1, we can find four persons who were evidently the members of non-Cahamana Rajput clans, i.e., Guhilas, Rastrakatas (or Rastauclas) and Saulurnkis (Nos. 6, 13, 16 and 18). None of them employed the title rajaputra, but they had other titles of status like ',dicta and thakkura and administrative titles like baladhipa and talara, neither of which were bestowed on Cdhamana clan members. From this fact, and noting that the royal kinsmen employed rajaputra and maharajaputra, we can conclude that these titles were allowed to be used only by royal kinsmen, and through such a title system they were probably distinguished from other ruling members who belonged to non-Cahamana clans. It can be supposed from the meaning of "maha" (great) that there would have been a difference of rank between maharajaputras and rajaputras. According to the inscriptions it seems to have depended on whether one was the son of the reigning king or not. In the reign of Alhana, his eldest son Kelhana, second son Gajasimha and third son Kirtipala all called themselves maharajaputras.8) In the reign of the next king Kelhana, his son Sodhaladeva was the governor of Mandor and designated as maharajaputra.9) On the other hand, as mentioned above, Ajayasimha, who is a son of maharajaputra Kumarasirnha, was rajaputra (No.

Load more