This offended Ratansl, However, Vanshavali tind 177 Vanshavali ^7^ hold that an offer to marry his dau-

-ghtei- to r.^na iiatansi was made by Kaja Frithviraj

Kachliawaha* The Rana sent his svard as his proxy for

mair^rir^ the girl. Incensed, Prithviraj returned the

sword and gave the girl in laarria^e to Surajmal. Rana

Ratansi I'elt offended and decided to pit ai end to the

lii'e of his competitor. iUl these ajBojunts are incorrect,

Surajmal did not liarry any fiancee of Ratansi. iiatansi 17B had Raj Kumi'{d/o Prithvircij ii-ac hhawalia) far his wife.

The Vansha-bhaskar says that Ratansi £nd Surajmal Hada

were both married to tFie different daughters of Sar*angadas

of Srinagar. Unce Ratansi and Surajraal happened to go to

tlieir father-in-law. Ratansi suspected illicit relations

Let ween his wife and Surajmal on .tJie occcsion of i tiger- 179 -hunt arranged by their mother.^in-law.

As r^ards the c ircuffistances leading to the open

reptisre bet vie en Ratansi and Surajmal, the Vansha-bhai^ar blames Furaniaal t'urbia, the priiueHrcinister of Mewar.

Rao Narayandas, the father of Siirajmal, hid killed Dikku,

the father of i^uranmal, ©n account of his frivolously

putting a straw piece in the beard of the Rao while he was

dozir^g under t!ie influence of opiusa. So an inveterate enmity existed between these two fanilies. It was at t^ e

instance of Puraninal th it the Rana sent very ineagre gifts at the tii.ie of the accession of Surajmal, which the latter had reluntantly accepted at the instance of his mother.

To avenge the death of his fat^her, rurannal Purbia planned the assassination of i'uranmal, the toother of Surajmal Ilada , at Kindolf^. The attempt failed and ths hired assassins vrei'e pursued. Thsy fbund shelter in the fort of Shaprapur, a fort Kithin the territories on Mewar r»ar the borders of Bundi. SuraiJraal, on learning about this, pursued them, and oh leiaanded tiieir surrender from the commndanb of that fort. It was le'used iaid the assassins 1 ^1 proceeded to Chit tor . Surajvaal performed the Tikador ceremony on that \ery fort, i'urmraal Furbia pois4or»d the eai s of the Kana about this iittack. A diarp letter from the

Kana to Surajmal was despat died. The mother of tie Rao happened to receive it. Surajmal c»uld not know anything about it. So the latter reiiainfid unreplied. This added fur-

-tFser firel to ti* anger of the itena Wnose anger now refused to be propitiated by anything less than the blood of the 1B2 aaversary.

Muhnot Nensi says that to end the quarrel Surajmal gifted away the elephant Meghnad and the horse Lallashkar, wliich vjere demanded by iU-tansi^to one bard Bhan Kisana by nanie, who «ne€ met Rat ansi in liewar. Bhan {raised

Surajmal highly in the presence of the Rana and ended his eulogy with a prophesy of sure defeat for the enemy of 1^3 the Rao. Un being asked the lard firtl^r related the story of the gift of the disputed horse and elephant. The iiana was infuriated . He expelled the bard from -newar and asl®d him to 30 to Bund if ^

The real cause of -Uie enmity between Eatansi ^nd

Surajmal, as revealed by Dai pat Vijay,j^ii lay in the presiimption of the latter wl=^ fead started arrogatij^ tii. iTiiaself some airs of independence. And, as suspected by I

1^6 Nensi,isl, there were no love lost between the two since the appointment of Surajmal as the oomiHndant of the fort of Ranthambhor by Saiga^

Vikram^jit and Udai S i n ^ . So net the marriage of SuraJ-

-raal Hada with the fiancee of Rafcansi nor his help to

Karmeti in negotiating 'dth Babar but the independent atti-

-tude of Surajmal and the question of returning of horse

Lal-lashkar and elephand i-Ieghnad embittered tlieir relations

The niBchanisni of Purannial rurbia and the gift of the dis-

-puted aninals to bard Bhan by Puranmal carried the fri-

-ction beyond the scope of any cam promise* Rat ansi made for Bundi aoon after his meeting with Blrian, accompanied 137 by Renakumar d/o Par mar Karamchand.

Death of Rat ansi

When the Rsna reached the borders of Bundi h» sent heralds to Surajmal announcing his approach and summoned him. Sifl:*ajraal, who knew the mind of the Rana since long, hesitated hijrti his suspicion was disanaed by %i(e mother

Khetu. Surajmal ppeser*ed himself before the Rana. bdbk met at Grokarna Tirth on the borders of I4ewar and bundi.

The ■ jeeting was affectionate . The Rana called Surajmal

* Suraj Bhai * and showed hira his mewly purchased elephant.

Surajmal rode before the Rana on a horse and Rat ansi was on the elephant. At one place the elephant attacked the

Hada prince but the latter avoided it. But the Rana. placated Surajmal by sweet words tnd both returned to their cainps. Two days after the Rana proposed a boar hunt-

The Rana told his wife about the eigjected hunt of a feroc-

-ious lone boar. Neitt the Rani entreated ^ t a n s i to 1.1.{

give up the mad intention of attadcing Surajmal and told

him that i t ^ ^ ^ ^ o t be an easy job. However, the Rana

did not listen. Next day while huntii^ ik in the jungle,

all the followers being left behind, only Furanmal, Ratansi, 1B3 1^9 Surajmal and a barber v;ere left under a tree, iuraninal,

commissioned attack the Hada, failed to strike, so

the Rana striack Surajmal fran behiAS? This sliced away a

part of head of tl» Rao* The attack was mie^'ected and

fatal. In order to finidi off tdie victim Puranmal also

struck and cut Surajmal *s thigji, Surajmal collected his

wits and returned the attack* Puranmal fell down shouting

for help. The Rana advanced near Surajmal and delivered

aiother blew. Suraj^^ial left Puranmal and with dagiier in

hand jumped and struck the Rana, then bent for striking

the Rao. The dag^^er, fixed near the base of his neck,

refi»:hed through his abdomen down ui*o the naval. The iUna

bled profusely and asked for water . Surajmal refused to

oblige him and the Rana died in extreme agony of pain and

thipStl^^ Surajmal also died instantaneous!^?

The Rana and the Roj both died at KinvajanH VT' .

Pawar aad t'uraHwai also liBt their deaths at the

hands of Surajinal, along with the Rana. The news of the

death of the Rao and the Rana was carried to bundi. This

excited the Hada to revenge blood of Surajmal; they fell upon the retini» of Ratansi and put them all to fligll^^

Ratansi was cremated near ijunll

The Date of the Death of Ratansi :

The task cf determination cf the date of the death of Rat ansi is rendered very complicated by the liimping by the annalists of the period of his acbiinistration during the life-time of S a n ^ with the period of his actual reign after the death of Sanga. Ratansi*s de facto rule started 10 months and 29 days bef>re the death of Sanga.

Sanga died on May, 19, 1523 A.D. during its continuation at Basuwa. So it is not unnatural to expect some auth-

-orities to lump this period with that of his reigh.

However, others excluded it also.

The maximum duration of the rei@i of Hat ansi is I to be fouixi inVanshavali 372 as 5 years 4 monbhs and 196 > 6 days • Jimar-kavya gives the rainiraum: 3 J^ars. If the view of Vanshavali 3?2 is accepted, Eat ansi *s death will be supposed to ha>« tkken place in Hov, 1533 A.D,

However, we know from the I'^^lim chronicle's that i>ahadur

Shah of Gujarat had made treaty with Vikramjit, the hro- m\ 1 Qg -ther and successor of Ratansi j^March, 23, 15^33 A.D, J.

So Ratansi must have died earlier. Similarly, the three years reign atttibuted to Ratansi by Amar Kavya cannot be accepted. In this case Ratansi will be regarded to have died in 1531 A.D. and his successor, Wiose maximum period of reign does not extend beyond 2 years, 9 months and 0 days would be regarded to ha\« cfcLe d in 1533-4 A .D ..

such the Second Saka of Chit tor (March, 1535 would be presuirred to have occurred in the reign of Banvir, v^ich is not true.

Then what is the actual period of the reigi of

Ratansi? OiA of the remaining fib r e s about the duration 200 of the reigi of Ratansi excej* Vanshavali B’Zd yiiixih g^Lves 7 ^ i > -

4 years, 4 months and 5 days the iBmaining ones give 201 eitJier 4 years, 5 months and 7 days , or 4 years $ 202 203 months and 1 d ^ or 4 years, 5 months and 0 day 204 or its variant 4 years, 0 month and 5 days. As the I majority of these Vam^amlis are givingtha variants of

4 years 5 months and 7 days I 7, 1, Oi are convertiaiSI^ we can accept 4 years 5 months and 7 days as the correct figureji. viiich got modified later into 5 years 5 months and one day^and 4 years, 5 months and 0 day, due to scribe *s mistakes. By adding 4 y&ars, 5 months and 7 dayd to Jaishta Sukla 1, 15^5 V.S.(May, 19,152^ A,i).) we get K^tika SuklaS, 15^9 V.S. {» Tuesday, November

5, 1532 A.D.) as the date of the assassination of Rana

Ratgnsi ^ Kivajana in bundi. Rat ansi assumed the adnini

-stration of Mewar on Saturd^, June, 1, 1527 A. D. ( or due to intercallory month on Sunday, June 30,1527 A.D. ascended the throne on B-lay, 19, 152^ A .D ., and died on

Tuesday, November, 5, 1532 A.D.

Character and Estimate of Rat anal

Ratansi was an energetic, aggressive and hard-

-boied but proud, emotional and an impat lent youngman.

He was astute and compromising sometitres When he saw the situation going out of his control. But vindictiveness and callousness governed him about the end of his life .

In his sentimental flights he reiUsed to close the gates of Chittor and belted that Melwa, Mandovar, Gujarat, 20$ Patan, i^rwar and Delhi were the gates of Chittor

Though lie succeeded in persuading Bghadur to give half of a ^ t i

V/agad of Hawal Jagraal, his artoed intervereblon on behalf

of Silhadi p^'oved a bitter ejqjeilence. The army of Mewar was chased upto the gates of ChitU>r and his successor

had to pay the penalty for his rashness. He, similarly,

failed to arrest the fissiparous tendencies in Eajputana.

but her« he was not to be blaine d. It v«as an out>come of

the political structure of Hajputana in those days* The manner- in viiich Hatansi attempted on the life of Surajinal

brought about his own death and plunged Mewar inton -

anarchy. In short, Rat ansi though iaxaKa. axd. sapaJaiK

unscrupulous acid passion-blind, was brave and capable;

and, as Khwian Kaso says, I'lewar was respected among •207 the crown-lie ads of Eajputana airing his reign. '

Katanai*s faaily: 20d Ratansi had several wives and Uve concubines •

Tie names of only four wives have come down to us. They 209 are

{aj iiena iiuiaar fawar, d/o Karamchand Pawar of Sri-

-nag ar

(b} Eat an xvusiar, d/o Urn Sii^gh Sankhala

(c) Kui&far Bai, d/o Kao I'jarayaadas Hada of Bundi

(d) liay i^umar, d/o Raja Prithviraj Kachwaha of

Ambar.

Out of theee four, the first went along with Hat ansi when he went on that fetal hunting e^cpedition to Bundi j 210 and stie imiiiolated herself on his pyre. The third was in Bundi at the time of his death because she immolated 211 lierself in Bundi ; We do not know anything about the

AauEfck BH heaKiAg aiuaufe jEfaaLxujKUza s£ kx whereabouts of the second though she also burnt herself

to death on hearirg about the doaise of Ratanll! The

fourth did not embrace death as her name has not mentioned 211 in the list of the Satis. None of these wives bore any

issue Id him.

Coins and Inscriptions of Ratansi

No coin of Ratansi has been so far discovered.

Only one inscription of his x*eigi has come down to us

from Palitana ( Gujarat). It refers to the seventh repairs

of the Shatrunjaya Tirtha Ten pie by his chief minister 212 Karan S i n ^ .

Army of Mewar U'ndw Ratansi:

The Vanshavalis give such a conflicting report

about the army of I4ewar that it is difficult to arrive

at any conclusion about^.Still it raight be said that 214 215 216 40.000 cavalry, about 17,000 infantry, about 300 elephants and 300 drurame:^!'^ comprised the amy of Mewar under

Ratansi.

Charities of Rabani

Ratansi gave 5 cows and 5 tolas gold, besides feedirig 50 Brabnins, daily. This total charity is esti- -inated at 5 villagss, 3 elephants, 300 horses and 11.000 cowi?

5 3 ' . ^

■ --V:■ FOQIHOTiiS

(I) Nensi 1/46-8,10^-9, Dr. Gopinath (i'^ewar and the

Mughal Emperors,p*47) calla this the "tutelege"

of the princes to Surjan, wMch is incorrect.

<2) ibid.,1/50.

(3) i b i d .,i /i 09-10.

(44 ^^emoirs H /3 4 1 *

(5) ^^ensi i/l 10. cioea ■ b a (6) This ''Ashuk"^appears to/Rao Ashokamal of Mandaur

Inscription (^se Appendix I (II)

(7) She was the daughter of Sanga, given in marriage to

Rao Ganga of Maxvar. nfter Uanga'ii death she was

dismiadod from insaolatings herself and later on she

perished in I I Saka of Chitt

ri Vanshavali ri Khyat, leaf 39(a)).

(8) Vir Vinod Sfi H / 7 ; 0»a: Udaipur Rajya ka Itilias,

1 / 389; I'iUnshi Devi Prasliad; ^'‘^harana Ratansingh|i, p.44; Ur. Gopinath, op. cit.,p.47>

(9 ) ^Wioirs II/ 341* (10) cf. ibid.,11/334. ( II ) ibid. , 1 1 / 341• Munsli Deviprashad l o p .d t . ,p .5 3 ) wrongly holds that these negotiations were conducted

by Kana Ratansi. ( 12 ) Babar reached Gwalior on Sept.26 (ib id .,11/336). in exchWige ( 13 ) ibid. , 11/341 • 'i’he demand Ibr Biana/for Ranth^bhor is an additionel. proof of the fact that it was

captured by the Mughals before Sept.1528 A.D. (cf.

Appendix M). (14 ) ibid.,n/34l-42. (15) ^%raoira (i>everidge Tr*), Translator's note,

11/615 n .2. (16 )' ibid (tieveriege tr, ),Il /6 l 7 . Leyden and Erskine (1 1 / 345) have translated these words as "first" and ”liiSt»,

(17 ) cf* ibid (Leyden and Erskine T r *),II/3 4 2 and lieveridge Tr, II/615 n .2. (1 ^) ibid (Beveridge T r ,j,II/6 l 5 n .2 .

(19) ibid.,II/6l6.

(20) ibid.,Il/620.

(2 1 ) Hawal iiana ki Vat, leaves i^0(b)-3l (a), -^t begins fey saying that Padara Shah iJliat went to Delhi on

the pretext of carrying ”RakM’* to Hunayun and ends

by saying that Padina Shah actually tied the ^Rakhi"

"to liumayun'e wrist. It further adds that Humayun

gi’aiited Ranthanibhor to i:>^arweti and that all this

liappened in 1523 A.if. (15^0 V .S .) when Sanga died

and ^^uinayun was niling. Kam eti, according to this

authority, was then bearing i^dai Singh in the sixth

raonth of pregnancy. For the text of this piece

See Appendix N. Vir Vinod (IX/5-7) follows it.

(22) The fort was Ranth»inbhor was lost by the Sisodias to Balmdur Shah in 1535 A.D. (Mirat-i Sikandari,p.1^)« (23) M irat.,p. 172-73; The Arabic History of »^;3arat, 1/224* (24) cf. Vanshavali B28, Isaf 6 l(a ). (25) Tab. III/333-40; Farishta IV/103-7} M irat.,pp.151-57; The itrabic History of Gujarat, 1/140,142.

(26) Mirat.,pp.160-1 ; Tab. I I I / 135,344-45; Farishta IV/109; The Arabic History oi Ciu3a r a t ,l /l 5 1. (27) Mirat.,pp.l6l-62; Farishta IV/l10-11; The Arabic

i^istory of Gujarat, 1/151-52. (2S) Mirat,,p.l62« (29) ibid.,p.162; Tab. 111/346; Farishta IV/l 10. (30) Tab. (1 1 1 / 346) calls him Bahrun, Farichta (IV/llO) and r^Tirat. (p .162), Prithviraj. However, his identity is tmdisputed from the other clues given in Tab,

and Farishta.

(3«) Tab. 1 1 1 / 346. (32) ibid.,1 1 1 / 346; Farishta IV/llO. (33 ) J'^rat. ,p.l 62. (34) ibiti.,p.l62j Tab. III/346,

(35) Mirat.,p.l63. (36) ibid.,pp.163-64.

(37) See Ch.IV n.65 above.

(3^) i'ankedan ki Aitihasik ^atan, item 31* (39) *'W.oirs 1 1 / 306. (40) Dungarpur ki Khyut, leaves 35-37. ^^an Bharti was r turning from Ujjain with hie v/ounded followers after

a clash with Vairagis on the banks of(^shtpra ^

(leaves 32-33)* (4 1 ) Oza: iians^^ada Rajya Ic:. Itihas, p.14» (42) i^Jensi 1/5^ n .1 . (43) ib id ,1/ 5^ n .1 . Dungarpur ki Khyat (leaves 37-9) says that it was Rana Sanga who divided Wagad between

Prithviraj and *^agmal.

(44) ibid, 1/58.

(45) Mrat.,p.lJ4; Tab. 111/347-48; Farishta IV/l12. (46) Mirat. (p.164) calls him Prithviraj while Tab. (Il l / 34^) and Farishta (IV/112) call him Paras Ram. (47) Tab. 111/348.

(4d) ibid.,111/348; Mrat.,p.l64j Farishta IV/112.

(49) Tab. IIIj(J343; i^'arishta IV/112. Jagnal*s wife was

sister of thfe wife o f Sanga (Dungarpur ki Khyat,i»*

leaf 36). (50) Tab. III/349; Farishta IV/113; Mirat.,p.164.

(51) Their nemep were Dungarsi and «Jajarsi (Mirat.,p*l64)« Farishta (IV/1 12 ) mentions only one messanger. Sin^h was the natural «on of Sanga (Vanshavali 828, leaf 6l(a ), Badava Devidan: Kewar ki Rioiiyaun ki

Khyat, leaf 2(a)).

(52) Mrat.,p.l64. (53) ibid.,p.l64; Tab. III/349; Farishta IV/112 , (54) Mirat.,p.l64. Mirat. calls this present a "tribute”.

(55)Tibir«»T?v m /3 4 9 . (56) ibid,,III/349; Farishta IV/l12 j Mirat.,p.165. (57) Mirat.,?•164-65. (58) ibid.,p.l65; Tab. 111/350. (59) Tab. III/350J Mirat.,p.165; Farishta IV/ll3,266.

Farishta calls Sikandar Khan as ^'^yin Khan s/o

Sikandar Khan. (60) Mirat.,p,l65, (6 1) ibid.,p.l65; Tab. III/350; Farishta IV/266. (62) Farishta IY/266; Mirat.,p.165, (63) Tab. III/ 349-5O; Mirat.,p.165. (64) Tab. I I I / 35O. (65) Mirat.,p. 165; Tab. IH/350. On jB.6lO Tab. says that Mai-iinud bad narched fron Ujjain toSatangpur to oppose

Eatansi, 'i (66) Mirat, ,p.l65« bailey (p.349) does not mention it.

Tab. (m /3 5 0 ), in stead of Sainbal, gives Silpa and

adds one more tovm of Balwad.

(67) Fjirisbta IV/113. (68) ibid.,IV/l14; Tab. 111/352,619; Mirat,,p.l66, (69) Chand Khan was left by bahadur in Chit tor in 1526

A.D. (Tab.IIl/330; Farishta IV/l20).He might have

left C ^tto r after the death of Sanga (See f^irat., p .150). (70) Tab,lll/610; The Arabic History of Gujarat,l/l95*

(71) Bpi. Indica, H/42-47.

(72) Tab. III/350; Mirat. ,p.165. Farishta (IV/l13i says

that Silhadi H e rd to Chittor and his son Bhupat

joined Bahadur Shah.

(73) ef. Tab. II1/349.

(74) ibid.,IIl/350.

(75) ibid.*1 1 1 / 350; Farishta IV/ll3j Mirat.,p.165. (76) Only Mirat. (p.l65) mentions this name.

(77) ibid.,p.165. Tab. 111/350; Farishta IV/113 . (7^) Tab. m /3 5 1 J Farishta IV/113; Mirat. ,p.l65. Tab.

further adds that bahadur Shah promised not to give

refuge to the fugitives from the court of *'‘^ndu

if the Sultan caae to meet as stipulated.

(79) Tab. m /3 5 1 ; Farishta IV/l14| Mirat.,p. 165. (Bo) Tab. III/3 5 1 ». Mirat. (p .165) holds that these were bestowT'd at the time of tho meeting while, according to Farishta, (IV/l 14 ) at the time of parting. (Bl) Farishta IV/II4. Tab. (H l /3 5 1 ) holds thafc Silhadi "elected to enter Sultan’s sservices”. However, Mirat 2 5 ^ (p*l65) says that Sllhadl "went in the l?etlnue of

of the Sultan".

(82) Mirat.,p,l65. (83) lbid.,p.l66j Jab.III/351-52; Fariehta IV/II4. (84) Farishta (Xl/64) gives Dec«23 and Gulbadan Begam

(Hiamayun ^aaQa,p.109) gives itec.26,1530 A.D.

(85) Tab.HA2-44. (86) Mirat.,p,l66,

(87) cf. ibid.,p.165. (88),ibid.,p.167. Tab.(III/353) and Farishta (IV/II5 ) say that it was March 29,1531 A.D. {89) Tab, 1 1 1 / 354, 613. Mirat. (p.l6?) says that Mahmud "begged for favour and forgiveness” . (90) Tab. 111/354,613. (91) Me aid his sons were given to Iqteal Khan and Asaf Khan for being carried to Gujarat, according to

M irat.(p .167)

(90) Farishta IV/115.

(93) Mirat.,p.l68. Farishta (IV/270) puts i>arangpur and

Ujjain along with Raisin and says that because

Silhadi was first to submit to Bahadur, he was

vntrusted with the administration of these districts^ for (94) When Bahadur Shah left/Burhanpur from *'^andu, Bhupat

was also along with him (Tab.IIl/6^f| 355,615). The

intentions of Bahadur Shah were to strengthen his

forces for the contest with ^^umayun (Farishta IV/ll6i

(9ft) Farishta IV/II7. (96) Tab.III/355; Farishta IV/117 , Humayun vreie at this time busy with the eastern Afgans (Farishta (1 1 /

45-6; A1 Badaoni X/452). So Bahadur wanted to Mrs strengthen his own position in before

the Mughals werefrom their eastern engagement, jience,

he returned to Mandu and sent Maqbal Khafa to Oiampa*

ner to guard the fort and despatch Ikhtiyar *-han with

artillery, troops and treasure* Ikhtiyar ^han joined

Bahadur Shah at Dhar on Dec*1,1531 A*D. To dupe Sil-

hadi, Bahadur annuoanced falsely his intention 6f

returning to Gujarat (Tab*IIl/355) and encamped at

Nalcha (lbid,,m /356).

(97) It was at ^alcha that the true nature of things

became clear to Bhupat (Tab.IIl/356; Mirat.,p,l70).

Bahadur moTed fi*om “ alcha to Sadulpur via Dipalpur

and Banharia. This made Silhadi submit believii^ that

Bahadur was returning to Gujarat (Mirat.,p, 170), But

Farishta (IV/117) says that Silhadi fled to Raisin. Mirat.(p. 170) says that Silhadi left his son Bhupai at Ujjain vdien he came to Bahadur.

(98) Tab. m /3 5 6 ; Farishta IV/l17; The Arabic History

of Gujarat,l/223.

(99) Tab.IIl/357.

(100) ibid.,III/357j Mrat.,p.17l; Farishta IV/II8. ( 10 1) Mirat.,p.17 1. (102) Tab. III/357.

( 103) ibid .,111/357; Farishta IV/117 . ( 104) Farishta IV/1 I8} Tab.IIl/357. (1©5) Farishta IV /118 . ( 106) Tab.IIl/6l6j Mirat.,p.171. (107) Tab.IIl/357; Mirat.,p.171; Farishta IV/1 1 S. (108) Tab.1 1 1 / 357-56, 616. (109) M ir a t .,p .171. z r v

(110) Tab,IIl/35S.

(111) ibid.,111/358-59; Mirat.,p.171.

( 112 ) M irat.,p.171. T ab .(111/359) gives Dec.17 for Ba^ticlur Shah's reaching Kaisin, which is

incorrect.

(113) Tat.111/359; Farishba IV/l 1 ^; Mirat.p,l71. (114) Mirat.,p.172; Tab.IIl/360, 6l6; Farishta IV/119; The Arabic %story of Gujarat, 1/223.

(115) Mirat.,p.l72} Tab.IIl/360; Farishta IV/118 ; The ilrabic Histcry of Gujarat, 1/224. The view of the Cam. Hist.(III/32S) that Silhadi "feigned to accept Islam” , though entertaining,is unsupported by any

reliable evidence. ( 116 ) Tab.1 1 1 / 360.

(117) ibid.,m/360-l; Farishta H/l19. Mirat. (p. 172)

says that ^akhmansingh was called from the fort to

the carap of the Sultan and there both the brothers

net and discussed.

( 118 ) Farishta lV/120; Mirat.,p. 172; Tab.Hl/36l. CII9) T a b .n i /36l; Farishba IV/120; Mirat.,p.l72. (120) Farishta IV/120. ( 1 2 1 ) ibid.,IV/120; Tab.III/3 61-62. Farishta gives the name^f of Ikhtiyar Khan instead of Burhanulraulk. (122) Tab.m / 361; Farishta IV/l19; Mirat.,p.172. ( 123) Mirat.,p.172. (124) ibid.,p.1 72; The Arabic History o f Gujarat, I / 224. because of Vikramjit being the successor of Hatansi

he is called the son of Hatansi* See appendix 0* ( 125) Mirat.,p.173; Tab.IIl/362. Farishta (IV/12 1 ) does not mention the Rana or his son. ( 126) Mirat.,p.173; Tab.111/362; Farishta IV/l21. (127) Tab.m / 362. (I 2S) i b i d ., 1 1 1 / 362; M irat.,p.l73. Mirat. calLs it Kharad. (129) Tab.1 1 1 / 363; Mirat.,p.173; Farishta IV/121. Son» Purbia Rajputs were taken prisoners (Tab.111/363)*

( 130) Tab.1 1 1 / 363; Mirat.,p.173. (1 3 1 ) T a b .IIl/363. ( 132 ) Kirat.,p.l73; Tab(II1/ 363) says that Bahadur reached in the neighbotirhood o f Kkirad and the army was

following him.

( 133 ) T a b . m / 363; Mirat.,li. 173. ( 134) Tab.1 1 1 / 363; Mirat,Jp.173. Mirat. does not mention their number.

(135) Mirat.,p.173. Tab. (III/ 363-64) says that the Rana sent a message to Bahadur tlirough these agents that

he had come personally to intercede Ibr Silhadi.

(136) Mrat.,p,173. (137) ibid.,p.173; Tab.ni/364. (136) Mirat.,p. 173. (139) ibid.,p,i73; IH/ 364. (140) Tab.111/364; M ir a t.,p .175-74. Farishta (IV /1 2 1 ) - not saye that it consisted of 30,000 horse. (141) Tab.1 1 1 / 364; Mirat.,p.174. ( 142) Mirat.,p.174. Farishta (IV/l2l) does not say t>tat the Sultan reached O ltt o r . (143) ibid.,p.174; Tab.IIl/365; Farishta IV/121. (144) Vanshavali a72,p.130; Vaixshavali W, leaf 67(a). ( 145) T a b .IIl/365. Mirat. (p.17iD speaks about the easin g Vwjrv'Ik. . ■e-f Silhadi -«B»d ne other co nd it ten.

( 146) ib id ,1 1 1 / 365; Mirat.,p .174. His despair was partly 7

born out of the bombardment of Khan's arttUngj

(The Arabic History of Guja#at, 1/224)•

( 147) T a b .H l /365* Mlrat. (p»174) speaks about tj^e calling of Silhadi and no other condition.

(14d) ibid., 1 1 1 / 365. Mirat.(p.174) does not mention the name of B|urhanulmulk.

(149) ibid., 1 1 1 / 36$; Mirat.,p.174. (150) Tab.1 1 1 / 365. ( 1 5 1 ) ibid.,111/365-06;farlshta IV/l22. Mirat.(p.174) speaks about 7*>^,U0U ladies in the seraglio of

Silhadi,

(152) The people enquired as to what Silhadi z^celTed in exchange for the fort of i-aisln and Silhadi told

that for the time beir^ Baroda was fixed as their

residence and in future he expected something

bettwe (Tab.IIl/3t>b), ilirat. (p. 174) says that the

district of Baroda was bestowed upon him.

( 153) Tab.1 1 1 / 366. Mirat.(p.174) says that it were the followers £f Silhadi who asked Silhadi questions and jeered at him. T a b .(III/366) says that the advice

to perform ^auhar Ccjne from Durgavati. Farishta (IV/122) says that Jurgavati repraoched both Silhadi and 1‘akhmansin^h for their failure in defending

the fort of Raisin. (154) Tab.1 1 1 / 366; Mirat.,p.174. See also The Arabic History of Gujarat,1/225.

( 155J Mrat.,p.175; Tab.IIl/366. Tab. ( I I I /366) says that Silhadi told ^’*alik Sher about the daily expenses in

his harem which anK>unted to 1 crore bettle-leaves,

several'seers' of camphor and 300 new dresses for his women companions. M irat.(p.17^) testifies to k

the great luxury of the harera of Silhadi as ’ hardly

owned by any other king of the period", ( 156J T a b .IIi/366-67; Mirat.,p*175* For the relation betnreen Durgavati and Bhupat, see Ch.V'I n«10? above*

(157 ) Tab, 1 1 1 / 367* See also The Arabic ^-istory of Gujarat,1/ 225# Farishta (IV/122) does not mention Taz ^han and M irat,(p,175) does not mention any

name whatever,

( 158) Sultan Alam KHan (according to Memoirs 11/2J2) was the son of Jalal i^han, and the adopted son of

M r Nizamuddin Ali Khalifa, the vazir of Babar (Mirat, ,p, 176), and was put in charge o f t ^ p i ( P' ^^sBoirs 11/272} M r a t , ,p ,176). After hisclefeat at

at the hands o f Miraa % n d a l, he fled to Bahadur Shah

about the time of the fall of Raisin (T a b .IIl/367). him De has confused/Sultan /ULluddin iodi s/o Sultan

Ibraliim Lodi (Tab. 1/52 n .l ) , A1 Badaoni (1/451)also

calls him son of Sultan Ibrahim Lodi. The Arabic

History of Gujarat (1/230) says that he joined

Bahadur Shah in 1 5 2 W 5 AiD,

(159) Mrat,,p.176; Tab.IIl/367,6l6, But Tab, does not mention the estate of Silhadi, Farishba (IV/270)

mentions only Raisin and no other district. The

inclusion of Chanderi in the jagir of Alam ^han shows

that ^'*edini Rai was also reduced by this time

(cf. i*lirat. ,p#179). (160) Tab.1 1 1 / 367-68} Mirat,,p,177. (16 1) M ir a t .,p ,177* ( 162) Farishta IV/l23. {163) Tab. 1 1 1 / 368. The Arabic History of Gujarat (1/ 226)

gives his name as Bhirhangal.

(l6Zf) Mirat. ,p.177. ( 165) ib id .,p .l77j Farishta IV/123. T ab .(111/368) holds

tliat Bahadur Shah joined Muhanmiad *^l)an Asiri when

Jie was proceeding to Gagnm and Ram, the goremor

of t>ie fort fled away as if without f i t t i n g . ( 166) Tab.1 1 1 / 368. ( 167) ibid.,IIl/36S; Mirat.,p.177. Farishta (IV/123) puts Rarithambhor in the place of ^'^andsaur.

( 168) Mirat.,p,177. ( 169) ibid.,p.177j Tab.1 1 1 / 368. ( 170) Mirat.,p.177. (171) Farishta IV/270.

(172) iiirat.,p.l77. Tab. (III/36S) and Farishta (IV/123, 270) do not give the date of his reaching Champaner. (173) Mirat.,p.l77. See Farishta IV/123 and Tab.IH/3 68-69, (174) Raval Rana ki Vat, lea£-4U leaves 8l(a)-(b). ( 175) Vanshavali 828, leaves 62(a)-(b). ( 176) Vanchavali 872,p .131# ( 177) Vanshavali 878, leaf 67(b). ( 178) Badava Devidan: Mewar ki Eaniyaun ki Khyat,leaf 2(b)i ( 179) Vansha Bhaskar, ^^ayukh 18O, pp.2135-43. ( 180) ib id .,p .212^. The mother ofSurajsial was Kheta Bai <(4^44 d/o Rao Suja of i'^arwar (Nensi I/IO 8; Bankedan ki Aitihasik Vatan, item 1701). So Dhanbai Rathor m/o

Ratan Singh and Khetu Rathorm/o Surajraal were sistersi ( 18 1) i b i d .,p .2126. ? (182) ibid.,p.2127.

(183) Kensi i/51.

(134) ibid.,1/52.

(1^5) Khuiiian Raso, leaf 127» verses 54-55« i>ee Appendix P,

(156) 1/47-43,109.

(1^7) "ensi 1/51.

(Ida) “enai 1/52-3.

(189) ibid.,1/110.

(190) ibid.,1/51 .

(191) ib id .,1 /5 3 ,1 1 0 . Other Vanshavalis simply cay that

^^92^ there vas mutual destruction of lives of Ratansi and Surajmal (Vanshavali ^28, leaf 62(a ); Vansha- -vali 872, p. 131; V jishavali 878, leaves 67(a) (b);

Mevrar ke Ranaun ki Pidhiyaun ki Khyat, leaf l6(b);

Bankedan ki Aiiihasik Vatan, item 1701). flawal

Rana ki Vat and ^luman Raso give a slightly differ-

-ent version. See appendices Q and E. (192) "ensi l/53; Rawal Rana ki Vat, leaf 82(b). (193) Nenei 1/50. See also Bankedan ki Aitihasik Batan,

^ item 1701. Kivajana is 20 miles from Bhansrodgadh, 44 miles frpjr; Chittor, 22 miles from Bundi and 12 miles from Mahnal (^*ensi I / 50). V (l93a)A^^^^®<^2ui ki Aitihasik Vatan, item 1702. ( 194) Vansh Bhaskar, ^'^yukh 183, verses 39-40.

(195) Nensi 1/53. ( 196) Vanshavali 872,p .132.

(197) Amar ^avya, leaves 30(b)-3l(a). * ( 198) Mirat. ,p.179. ^ e also Nensi 1/54.Vanshavali 878 (leaf 68(a)) and Surya Vonsha (leaf 50(b)) have included the Second Saka of Chittor (1535 A*D.) in

the reign of Ratanai du<; to their confusion between

Ratansi I (the husband o f fabulous Padmani: Banke-

-dan ki Altihasik Vatan, item 9^5) and Ratansi II

(s/o San^a; See Appendix S ). The first Saka of

Chittor had taken place in the days of iiatansi I

(Nensi 1/21),

(199) Akbar flama 1/301. r* (200) Vansl'avali 328, leaf 6 l(b ),

(201) Sisod Vanshavali, item 227.

(202) Rajavali (vfithout pagination); ^^war ka Itihas,

item 227.

(203) Vanshavali leaf 66(b^; ^^apers in Qollection

of Shri Motilalji Shrotriya. (204) Surya Vc.nsha, leaf 49(b). (205) See Chart II in Tiwarii Some Undeterminea Dates

of Mevrar, Uni.Poona Journal, 1955» facing p .9^. (206) Vanshavai S26, leaf 62(a ); VanshaTa^i B?2,pp. 130-1;

Vanshavali leaf 66(b)r (207) Khunian Raso, leaf 127(b), verse 43 • (20S) Vanshavali 82^ (leaf 62(b)) gives 13 wives and 5

concubines, Vanshavali ^72 (p.132), 1200 wives and VOL,) 5 concubines, Vanshavali (leaf d7^wives^and 5

concubines, Surya Vansha t^eaf 5 0 (a )), 13 wives

and 5 concubines and Mevfar ki Raniyaun ki Khyat

(leaf 2(b)) gives only 4 wives. (209) Badava Devidan: Mev.ar ki Raniyaun ki Khyat,leaf 2(b)< (210) ibid.,leaf 2(b); Nensi 1/53.

(2 1 1 ) Badava Devidan, op. cit.,leaf 2(b)

(212) Epi. Ind.,11/42-47. 2- 1

(213) Vanshavali ^28 (|eaf 62(a)) gires 10,000 cavalry,

lljCKDO foot,300 elephants,300 drununers; Vanshavali $72 (p.129) gives 40,000 cavalry, 1 ?,pOO foot, elephants 300/dFi«HMHP«, 200 drunmers, 21 ttajas and 22 Eawats

Vanshavali (leaf 66(b)) gives 10,000 cavalry, 300 foot, 1,100 elephants, 300 drummers; and liajavali (without pagination) gi-ves 10,000 cavalry, 30,000 foot, 1,100 elephants, 300 drummers, 21 Eajas, 22 Raos and 9 itawats«

(214) Vanshavali ^ 2 , p,129; Hirat,,p,172j Tab.IIl/36l|

Fariijhta IV /ll9.

(215) Vanshavali e?2,p.129. 11,000 of Vanshavali BzS (leaf 62(a)) appears to be the rais-rendering of 17,000. alo^ Iti^cannot be accepted that ^'^ewar had only 300 foot

(cf. Vanshavali leaf 66(b)). The figure 30,000

of Rajavali appearsa little too liigh though there

is not Valid reason for rejectins this figure.

(216) Vanshavali S2JJ, leaf 62(a); Vanshavali 572,p .129. Mien Sanga himself had only 1,pOO elephants, it is

difficult to believe that with -im&it reduced kingdom

Ratansi could maintain 1,100 elephants. (217) Vanshavali628, leaf 62(a); Vanshevali B7B, jje&f 66(b) Rajavali (without pagination). ( 2 1 B) Vanshavali 32$, leaf 6l(a); Vanshavali 3?B, leaf 6 9 (h )} Surya Vansha, leaf 50(a). All the Vanshavalis

except Vanshavali 323 give 1,000 cows. It appears

thi.t by mistake the scribe has rendered 11,000 into 1,000. {. - ?

Appendix ;

TT% erWh ^ w w I 1 tt ^ I JFm: IcFKh^Fft- ^ I WZ ^ 5 T W I vrnrt* ^ tttt » f r ^ t r h h t ^ - h^ ft- ^ rr 3R ^ w I ^ *rfVnr s*r f i *rf^ ^ 50[c?if^Yi5ft- tr iRH I n n w n r f #

fHTg Tlcftw^ ^ ^TFWr I ^ ?lT ^ T v it =RK J ^ f ^ T I

fha NhiTpsSt- ^ ^ f W n % T T I i q T d € T r $ r ^ 4 r ^ ^ cn’stm t f i inr # ^ *ttt f ^ I w 4ni55 ^ tt^ § r r a gqn m xrift • *

. . Tvsm TTTT ft* tff * <

Appendix *0* :

* * %Rc^>cf \d=HSt HTcTT * *

*lrcfr-«r®^ V f t ^ ^ ^ ^ 'fr?? Ir.

Appendix *1^ :

* * w m a r ^ g r r w * I iR ft* =frsr 9¥^ i TTci ^ Tf I =nr^ ^ 11 X m I 5 }T ^ ^ 3RT ^ 'te f^nPB I =» ^ 11

.. ®pcinr irfr , ^ >«

Appendix *0* :

' *5Efr^ f e r 3®r TRfsfr ^ S m w f^??rpi# ^ i ;Rt-=rrar = f t w ^ ^ i %rtr |TcTt- <£ft- i aft^ 1^ ^ ^ ^ 3 ^ ^ ^ ^ trr^ I m r r ^ § T T ^ ^ 3fT^ f f>fh^ ;#*rr i t t ^ *rt 9 T W «rr. =fhJrr ^ gtrr tfl" -tet 3 5 i^^nr tt^ t wtr tr I ^ ■»i3rr I r m # §5?r ^ w i ^ ^ ^ %# >0^03 ^ |r-n3^ I 55 ^ x i T ^ ^ I'Ff ^ 33tr swT%r Appendix *0* :(Contd..,)

gaft I 2ir 4 p m ^ «sr ^ ^ arnn" i ^rar

tr ^ I ^ TT^ ^FT^TfT * w !p| 3f g MTcf ^ I f ^ T T ^ I ^ «r^h" I tjg gs^ I ^ jjr ««7t J ^ f sRTfr* £fT^ I r T T ^ ^

. ♦ TTSR5 TPTT £?Tcl ,tr?<<3r-^. Appendix ^R« :

aflHTfci ^ ^ I 3TT% g4n»r 3iT^^rtr en^lr 1 ^s^rr ^ tpt n so n ^^r%r I ^ ^T3fl" ^ ^ ^ T r r fW I ^ i i s^ 11 ^ T T % ccFRft* I ^ arn? ^ ^ " f W

^ * tnr^FPia f % sftcTt ^ i K * n ^ t?rf^ ^ i r r f W i /r%r4t‘ t o ^ f W irf^ Tfpf% ^ I t t A *p»jV 4 W 3 ii^? ii ^rf^ ^ ^ tr 3h- 2jr^ s r w ^ I ^ ^ ^ H ^=t II

.. gqrr n % ,

Appendix *S* ;

'* icffRfh fr%r ?j w. UH« ?lcfr htctt tt^ tRffiTifr 1 iftcTr fnft- ^ st^Rtn: i arrr ff • ^ tTTcwr^ 4 i^ir VxT 5rr?3 ^ CHAPTER V III,

RANA VIKRAMAJ IT S/Q RANA SAMQA,

( 1^32 - 1 g3S„,.A,D.)

■vM, Vlkramajiti the second striving son of Sanga from Hadi Karmeti, succeeded his half-brother Rat ansi • P who had died issueless. Thou^ the exact date or year of birtii of Vikramajit is unknom, it is clear from the gVailable infornation that he ^las not a minor at the time of his succession* Satiga had sent him i;ith presents to Bahadur Shah in 1526 A.d J Hatansi had also sent him as the commnder of 40,000 cavalry 2 to relieve the# fort of Raisin in 1532 A.D. In absence of any proof about the practice of associating minor princes vdth diplomatic aiwi military missions in Mai^ar it should be accepted that Vikramajit was quite a growi up boy in 1526 A.D. and was old aiou^ to be entrusted with the responsibility of heading a cavalry force of 40,000 heads, sent for relievir® a garrison. So it might be said that Vikratrajit was too young to be a ruler but it is wrong to say that he was a minor. It is jtat poooiblo' that at the time of the death of Sanga, Vikramajit held thej^comraand of 3 the fort of Ranthambhor.

Bahadur Shah*s Attack on Chittort

Bahadir Shah was already bugy with his pre-

-parations for attacking Mewar for Ratansi*s inter- -vention on behalf of Silhadi. In Oct. 1532 A.D.he had despat died from Dltl/to Muhammadabad a great

Egyptian gynt c^tured from the Portuguese recently?

It was so bj^ that many bullocks and 3^0 sailors could pull it with a greafc difficulty^ Hundred pieces of ordinance and two large size guns"^ were also sent?

This artillery was intended to be used fl>r battering

down the walls of Chittor? At Batwah he recruited

several thousand soldier?, collected a ^st quantity 10 11 of arms, and sent them all to Mandu. r^uhammad Khandf

Asiri, was ordered to move out from Khandesh to attack

Ciiittor and Khudawand Khan, the comraander of Mandu, was asked to join him^? Me^v^ild Katan si died on

November, 2, 1532 A.D. This expedited the attack of

Bahadur on Mewar. On learning about the safe arrival of arms and army at Mandu , the Sultan left Champaner on November 16 and by forced raarches reached i»landu on November 18. Orders were issued to ^luhammad Khan 13 Asiri and Khudavand Khan to proceed against Chittcr,

When they reached Manddsaur they met emiss-

-aries of Rana Vikramajit with proposals for peace which stipulated surrender by the fiana of all his possessions in Malwa, submission to any tenns imposed by the Sultan, acknowledgement of the suBerainty of cbUtke. the Sultan, and willingness to pe rlbrm diti es demanded of him^il’ The Sultan (then at Mandu) was at once sounded by the commanders through Shujat Khan. Bahadur was so much offended at the intervention of Ratansi in Silhadi affair that he refused to listen to these overtures and ordered his army to press on. Tatar Khan, the grand son of Bahlol Lodi, was asked to take the initiative in laying siege to the fort of Chittor,^^

Tatar Khan moved cautiously dreading an engagement. 16 But the Hana dared not risk any battle. So the forces of Gujarat besieged the fort of Chit tor in Dec. 1532 17 A.D. On Feb., 9, 1533 A.D. Tatar Khan conquered the lower fortifications of Chittor . Next day he attacked the fort from the side called Kotha and carried 18 gates. Sultan at Mandu was informed of this success. So by forced marches he reached Chittor at the head of 5»000 horse within 24 hours from Mandu.

A big army followed him. From the hill of Chittor cannonade was ordered. Each discharge bzou^t down some portion of the wall of the fortl® The Sultan

MdBfrelf exerted himself in a commendable way. At

Lakhota Gate battery Alif Khan was appointed. Tatar

Khan and Medini Rai and most of the Afgan and Deccani nobles were fixed at Hanuman Pol batta*y. White bastion battery was supervised.Mallu Khan, Sikandar

Khan and other nobles of Malwa. Bhupat Rai and Alif

Khan \irere also similarly assigned important assignmen'^s.

The strong armanent and ammunition available with the

Sultan were enough to besiege foia* forts similar to 20 Chittor. Parties were sent to ravage the adjoining countzy of the Hana. Rumi Khan exhibited great skill in mounting guns on the hill-tops of the adjoining elevations and in aiming the gunds. His bombardmant of ttie poeitions inside the fort was very accurate.

The quick f iri ngs, the mining ope rati ons and the - running up of approaches shoved him as an excellent inark-man.u 21

In this extren» distress Vikraniajit made an appeal 22 to Htimayun for help. The reqiest reaaained barren. 23 The plea of Farishta “^that Humayun moved to Gwalior after this request is incorrect.^^ 25 The siege of Chit tor lasted for 3 months .

During this period the Hajputs defended the fort bravely and made gallant sorties . The Gujarat army also met their challenge boldly and beat them off. Both the parties perfarned several gallant dee^t.

Rumi Khan exhibited great skill. He fired hell upon the garrison?"^ Ultimately Rumi Khan succeeded in 26 breaching a wall. The engage me nt which followed saw 29 many Rajputs ,including 17 nobles killed ; However, the fort did not fall though its defence was despaired of even by the besieged.^® So a peace proposal was 31 made by Karmeti throu^ her son-in-law Bhupat to 32 the Sultan . The envoys of the Sultan visited the fort and trusted men of the Rana went to the camp of the Sultan to settle the terns of the treaty.^^

Karmeti*3 Negotiations with Bahadur Shahs

Karmeti solicited pardon for her son,

Vikramajit, and promised that in Aitiu^ he would remain the most obedient servant of the Sultan. The surrender of the trophies and jewels of Malwa, ten million tankas, 100 horses and 10 elephants was also jaromised,^^ pi*ovided tlie Sultan spared the pla<» and marched away*^^ 10 million tankas were those days equivalent to 5 lakhs of rupees^^ So whatever the

suslim historians might claim^the money aid aniiaals proposed to Bahadur Shah do not indicate that it was a big triumph* So not the reasonability of the terms of this treaty( which, according to Mrat-i-Sikandari, 37 was the & r their acceptance by Bfifcadur } but 38 the Portuguese menace in Diu and the movements of 39 Ni|amuddin Deccani*^ were also the weighty reasons for compelling Bahadur to patch up a peace. Udai Singh 40 was given in hostage by the Rana. On receiving the stipulated amount and animals, Bahadur Shah retired two miles from Chittor on March, 23, 1533

Loss of A.lmer and Ranthambhort

Fxx>m his headquarters tvo miles 1 away fzom

Chittor, Bahadur Shah defipatcled I>^ik Shamsherul Mulk

Nulia Khan with IZtlobles to conouer A jm e r S im ila r ly ,

Barhanntil Mulk Muhammad Bayani and Kujahid ivhan were 43 sent to reduce Ranthambhor • tiumi Khan also accompanied this party, Hanthanbhor was besieged. During the siege

Bahadur Shah promised the fort of Hantftiambhor to Rumi

Khan. However, after its fall, Bahadur was dissuaded from cashing his promise by Amin Nas, So Rumi Khan was promised the fort of Chittor, after its capture in t h e ^ ^ t u r ^ On March, 30, Bahadur left fbr &Iandsaur 45 from his carap near Chittor.

This makes two things clsar* Firstly, the price paid by Karmeti was simply for raising the siege, and *1 .-^-<■' sparing the fort, of Chittor (cf. the conqiwsts of

Ajmer and Ranthambhoij). And secondly, the Sultan had in his mind the idea of attacking Chittor in some near futxire (of. the jpromise of the fort of Chittco' to Rurei Khan).

Mewar Between the Two Attacks of Bahadur Shak:

Vikramajit exhibited the vwrst features of his character after the departure of the Gujarati forces 46 from ^ewar. Ke took to drinkix® and oonm«ted himself 47 to the company of wrestlars and low bona . He boasted ludly about the physical prowess of his wrestler - conpanions^7 openly insulted the Rajputs^^ These wrestlers received free ration of "ghee” (clarified butter), wheat and meat from the State.This dis-

-{^sted the nobles. Some Rajput officers, including

Duaa Mehta, colluded with the Minas*(Meos) and other anti-social elemer*s, who lifted away the state-cattle from the plains under the nose of the fort of Chittori’^

The officers coiTsnanded by Vikramajit to pursue the 49 ganfjstere refused to carry out the order. The Rana could also do nothing except nursing his anger against these disobedient officers in his palace?^

Fli/rht of Udai Singh to Mewar from Gu.iarat:

About this time, another turn for the worse occured* Udai Singh , wko was handed over to t^ahaiur

Shah in hostage, returned to I-lewar under peculiar cir«f

-curnstances. Bahadur, being issuless, wanted to adopt him as his son and successor after convei'ting him to Islam. This wish hs had ^expressed to some of his confidential adTisors. The Rajputs, who had —

accompenied the p ® * o « d c prince to Gujarat, on leerning^this^fled precipitately to Chittor under the cover of darkness to save the prince’s religion.

Soon tlieir flight beaome known to Bahadur. He was greatly offended by it and attacked Mewar in effect.However, these events were simply

occasions for the ventilation of the inner ani-

-raosity lying stored in the heart of Bahadur for

Sarga*s invasion of Gujarat and his taking away

of the notable families of Ahmednagar in slavery, 52 including the daighber of the Qazi of thet^^place. 52 Bahadur Wgnted to avenge Ahmadnagar on Chittor,

The time was also opportune because the nobles 53 were estranged from the Rana.

Baha4ur_gMi.*.g .geggnd. Si.e^e. o|_Phittqg.t^ ^ U ° ?

Bahadur Shoh had already collected a huge

army cc»eiprising xaKusit recruits from Khandesh, the Deccan, Konkan and Gujarat. Even the Portugaese and the Mughals were drafted irtbo this force^^!’

All told I it consisted of 1,80,000 soldiers and

1,400 elephant s.On ieuniing about the internal dissensions in Mewar,^^he left Mandu fcr Chittor 57 at the head of this arncr.*^'

When the intelligence of the intended attack of ^ahadir Shah oh Chittor reached -

Vikramajit^® through the Vakils of !4ewar in 59 Mandu, he sent word to the nobles to repair to Chit tor 60 61 with their armies. Rao Dal pat of iJumpat, Jhala Sajja, 63 64 65 Rawal Ashokaraal Pawari Kalla Chundawat, Kao Asakaran, 66 67 Hawat Kheta and many othe rs joine d the Kana • Hana

Vikraiiajit placed himseli' at the head of this army 68 consisted of cavalir and elephantry and rode out 69 to meet the invaders beyond Nimuch, at Jiran , near 70 Mandsaur • Tbs young Hana aid Bdiadur Shah rode on 71 their respective elephants to direct thsir armies*

Vikramajit was too young to raatch the trained array and the^strategy of iiahadur Shah. Besides, the artillery of liujarat was, a very pov^ei'fUl weapon against tiie

Sisodias who had not by that time equipped themselves with fire-arms. Soon after the beginning of the battle the defeat of the kewar army became evident. Differences sprung up between the Rana and his nobles. The Raj pub soldiers taunted the Rana about his past remarks about the uselessness of the Rajputs as a fighting apparatus and witharew from tiie field with an admonition to the 73 Kana to call bis wrestler-companions to f i ^ t . The

Sisodia army and the nobles fled in all the four dir-

-ections'^V It was a complete victory ^ i^ahadur.^^ 76 77 Vikramajit also fled to Chittor counting wounds on 78 78 his person and closed the gates of the fort.

bahadur reconnoitrated the field and set down 79 80 to irwest the fort in Nov.-Dec. 1534 A.D. The management and cciBinan(^f the siege was entrusted to

Rumi Khan on the reiterated promise of handiz^ av&r 81 the fort of Chlttor after its fall • Ruml Khan exArted himself in a superhuinan, and the most excellent, way*

His guns and ammunition as vrell a« trained Pourtuguese S artillery«raen performed miracles 2 . S3 Meanwhile, offended, besides other reasons, by the attack of Bahadur Shah's general Tatar Khan on

Uicina^^ and Burhanul Mulk’ s attack on Nagor^^, Humayun marched out from Agra on Feb. 1^,1535 A.D* to oppose $6 Bal*adur • V/Iiile at Gwalior he leam t about Bahadur 67 SIiah*s siego of Chittor • However, he pressed on. The garrison of Eaisin surrendered without any opposition •

Bahadur Shah begged him to spare the Sultan till he defeated the infidels at Chittor • Humayun gave no reply^^* Leaving ^"^aridu in the rear, Kiimayun reached as 90 far as Sarangpur which also surrendered. Terrified by the news of the rapid m rch of ^kimajrun into I4alwa, 92 Bahadur Shah called a meeting of his nobles for counsel.

All except Sadr Khan advised for raising up the siege f^*d figl* with the Kuglials^^. Si^dr Khan Hussain Abdul

Latif reminded the Sultan »£ of the Quranic obligation which bound Hujaayun and reqaested the Sultan to carry 93 on the siego • His advice prevailed and the siege went on^^. ^'umayu©, on learning about this conferen?4, halted at Sarangpur to save his co-religionist from molestation while the latter was waging a holy war^^. However, the authorities are not unaniiious about the party which took 96 initiative in getting this I'ughal halt. Tabkat-i Akbari , 97 and Al Badaoni hold that Huriiai^am halted of his own accord at Sarangpur in conXiriaity with the rules of Islam*

Mirat-i Sikfandai i also holds this view but says tiiat Humayun halted at Gwalior. Akbar Nama99 say a that thehi^^ 100 h€ilted at Ujjain* »Jauhar , on the other hand, says that i^umayun halted somewhere near Chittor at the re of Bahadur Shah, the Hana requested the Emperor through

Dungarsi, a natural son of Hana Sanga, fi>r aid^®^.

Though the time of this request la not mentioned, it is not irreasoiiable to infer that it would have been addressed to I!umayim when the latter*8 determination to halt at Sarangpur would have become known to the Eana*

However, religious scruples proved too powerful for the emperor 102 •

Bahadur Shah went on with the siege of Chittor apparently undisturbed^though the reverses of the

Gujarat arms at Biana and the surrender of the & r t s of 104 Raisin and Sarangpur bad chastened him • However, the failure of HuBiayun to coirie to their aid made the garrison desperate. Rawat Bagh Surajanalot of Deolia IO5 inA was elected " tlie king of Chittor '*• gave grant .107 of some land for the geace of the soul of his father

He had already extracted a promise from i^armeti that the grant of villages made by his father in Sadadi in the days of Rana Kaiioal should never be annulled,as a , price for his consent for acting as ”the Rana of Chittor?

With the permistvion of Bagh Singh, Vikramjit and

Udai Giogh were renoved from Chittor to Bundi under the 109 eacort o f Ravat Udayaditya and Chakrasen Dhandhariya

Weankhile the Gujarati forces succeeded in running a I — ' 110 "if i mine under a tower called Bikakoh Arjun, s/o-R*© i

Narbad of Bundi, along with 5 other nobles, was blown 112 up . ]^ediately Eao Duda and Satta Sisodia z*ushed to the breach and succeeded in steraming the rush of the

Invaders into the fort^^^» Others also ran to their 113 help and the attack did not succeed . No Muplim his­

torian laentione this event, which, by itself, points

to the failure of this attack. The wall-piece again

landed in its place^^^. The fact tliat the fort dM not

fall due to this exploison is a safe clue for inferring

that the garrison succeeddd in healing .the wall promptly 115 v/hile Du]^a and Satta were fi^^ting off the assailants * 116 ^ The siege lastod fcr 3 months • Bahadur Shah ^succeeded 117 in building^covered ways •

Second Saka of Chittor:«

Finding no alteriiative other than death, the

garrison performed "Jauhar” . ^hdse Babies which v/ere

not consigned to fire v/ere thrown into tanks or wells 119 s, . ■ or other such acquatic places .^Th*£,^perished a daugh­

ter of Karmeti (w/o iil^i Ghand KhLchi), two wives of 120 121 ivana Vikrainjit , Padneivati (w/o Rao Ganga) and

'f-13,OQ0^ other ladies along with their childre^^^. The

native authorities are not uhanimous about Karraeti. iiorae

hold that ahe also perislied in this general conflagara-

tion^^^. Kavi Rao^24^ an almost near contemporary poet, 125 and Vanshavali 828 say that she doned herself in

male attires and fought to her death with sword in hind#

The malefolk,clad in suffron robes, rushed upon the

invaders and sold their lives very dearly. Solankl

Bhairavdas fought at Rarapol and died • Sinha Jhala 127 Ajjawat and Sajja Jhala bore the brunt of the battle

at Hanurrjan Pol • Dodya Ajjawat, Sajja, Harayandas,

Dodya Chandra Bhan, Chauhan Xsardae, Hathi Sonagara, ■ l;'

iiz aSBj SDBJ 01

•a o w m o *lldo^Jau^o Sji{9Bg •Ranigade Chauth Singh^^^, Rawat Duda Ratansinghot,

Sonigara ^ ^ a (s/o Vala), Chimdawat ^anga Singhot (b/o 130 Gagga), Panchayana Fawar (s/o Karamchanda Pawar) ,

Purohit Devidas^^\ Karma Ratansinghot Chimdawat^

Ragodas^^^, Dhandhrlya Randhir^^, Fatta^^^ and Udaidas

Munjawat Rathor^l^* with about 13*000 soldiers sold

their lives very dearly to the invaders^^^, Bodiss of

about 3»000 babies were later on recovered by the inva-

ders from wells, tanks other aequatic pla

Bagh Singh (now the Rana of Cliittor )fouisdit bravely and . ^ fell fighting near Pandalpol gate of the fort 1381^ . iiahadixr

Shah was the first man to enter into the fort.139 140 great massacre was perpetrated • Numberless captives

of both the sexes were taken oaptive^^^. 142 Huge booty was also received «

It was Feb,27,1535 A * D .^ ^ , In a special function^ ^

all the spoils of Chittor were distributed among the

soldiers^^^*

Bahadur Shah had promised the fort of Chittor to

Rumi Khan^^ but after its conquest, on the advice of other nobles against handing over such a powerful and

strategic fort to an alien^^lt was made over by the Sul- 148 tan to ^alik Shamsher-ul Mulk •

Bahadur Shah and Humayun Near ^^^andsauri

149 After a stkay of 14 days in Chittor to carry

out repairs Bahadur moved towards Humayun^51, who 152 also in his turn, moved from Sarangpur to meet him *

Both the armies met in the district of ^andsaur**^^,

Sadr Kban*s advice to engage the Mughals immediately 27^f when the llujarat am y was in excellent spirit^ was

rejected by Bahadur In favour of Rvuini Khan's proposal

to surround the camp,on the pattern of the strategy of 154 155 Rum, with gun-carria^^es oTj^ditchip , inspite of

the objections from the nobles^• Both the armies 157 lay encamped opposite each other for about two months •

About this time Alam Khan came from Raisin with a large

army and joined Bahadur^^*^any skirmishes took pla^l^*

The Mughals hovered a]K>und the Gujarat camp but did not

attack it and avoided their guns^^. Supply of Bahadur

Shah was cut o f f l ^ , The Gujaratis were boxed up in

their camp^^® and suffered a great famineThe Sultan l6l ^ was terrified ordered the destruction of jewels and

other valuable articles, mutilated his favourite elepha- and nts/ bur8t»4 his guns includ»4ing the famous ^air - Utta

and % ja n u ^^^. Under the cover of night he fled^^^

towards Mandsaur^^^ with the help of Ourgabfagn^^^ and

thence moved to Mandu ^d.th the help of Hao Durgabhan of

Rampura^^^, It was April 25,1535 A.D.^^^*, On learning

about his flight the army of Gujarat either melted

away^^^'^ or was despersed by the Mughals

Reconouest of Chittor bv the Siaodias;

The despersion of the Gujarat army and the fact of the flight of Bahadur Shah to Mandu presented the nobles of Mewar with a golden opportunity to liberate strength of the the fort of Chittor. The fact that the« combined/garri­

sons of Ranthambhor, Ajmer and Chittor could not be more 167 than 20,000 cavalry ' shows that the number of the

Gujarat army in Chittor at this time was not very large* Eao Surtan of BAndl, the host of Vlramajlti sent a message tp Humayiin through Padam Shah Sbr aid 168 • l6g Hijmayiui repponded favourably . Possbily, Humayun sent some Mughal soldiers for helping the Slsodlas.

With 5-7f000 soldiers the Slsodias attacked the fort i 6q 170 of Chlttor ^ and reconquered it on May 4*1535 A.O. 171 Raval Rana ki Vat says that after the conquest of

Mandu , Huijiayun turned towards, and conquered,Chittor.

It further adds that Huniayun enquired from Padam Shah about the whereabouts of Vikramajit* On learning that the Rana was then in Bindi, he was called to CMttor by the emperor; and on his return Humayun himself 171 girdled the royal sword around the young Rana*s waist.

Muhnot Nensi also confirms the fact of Humayun's coming to Chittor and his participation in the reconquest of 172 this fort • No Muslim historian has referred to 173 these erents. However, all Vanshavalis corroborate the main trends of thisK account. What appears most probable in the light of the testimony of these Rajput chronicles is that some Mughal help was received by

Vikramjit in the reconquest of Chittor. However, it is improbable that Humayun personally participated in the installation ceremony of Vikr^ijit there. The only available instance of Humayun*s approach to the fort of

Chittor is his meeting with his half-brother Mirza

Asakari "near Chittor” when the latter was moving from

Ahmedabad to Delhi in trebellion against Humayun, then in Itodu^^^. Possibly, this event has been inflated by the chroniclers of Mewar into Hmayun*s entry into the fort o f Chittor and his |)articipation in the " second” — i 't lV ,______Asaassinatlon of Vlkram.iit:-

Vlkramjit*6 recent stay in Buxidi was too sweet to teach him any lesson. So instead of being grateful to his nobles for their initiative in the reconquest of Chittcr, he started insulting them with an added a zeal* One day he got foul water released on the person of liawat Khan while the latter was on his way to the court. As if this affront to a respectable noble was not enough, on the same day the Sana managed to punch the nose of Karam Chand Pawar in the^darlvar. Ravat Khan tauntingly enquired fvea Ask*k from Karam Chand Pawar just after this event about the sweet scent of the flower thus offered by the Kana. This incensed Karam Chand into a retort that very soon those flowers were to mature into fruits. Both of them wrote to Banavir and recalled him to Mewar^^^ from Gujarat^ Banavir soon became a favourite of the young Rana^'^’^. Some time afterwards these nobles suggested to Banavir to murder

Vikrarajit. Banavirs excused himself by protesting his own illegitimate birth which was a bar to his cAsumption of the royalty of Mewar. But the conspirators encouraged him by saying that whatever the nobles would decide was to be final. Banavir agreed^*^^. Rajavali disagrees with this view and holds tliat all nobles, except Raval Khan, were involved in the plot on the life of Vikramjit. This view is corroborated by Mhwar ke Ranaun ki Pidhiyaun ki

Khyat which says that Rawat Khan, known for his loyalty to Vikramjit, was k&pt out of Chittor by seiKiing him

(Rawat Khan) away to his father-in-law's home on the ISO festival of "Tija" (which occurs every year on S^ravan

Krishna 3)» 1 do One day at about 3 P.M. , iianavir, his brother- in-law Dakhanl^loaksh Singh) and several other noble entered into the fanale apartinents of Vikramajit and proceeded to kill hi:Ti. Vikrarajit, then taking batli, solicited laercy on the plea that the whole of Mewar b lay in the hands of Banvir, who was his ilder brother, and that it ms due to hia (Banavir^s) presence and protection that he (Vikraiajit) v/as feeling secure.

Banavir*s heart melted at this petious appealbut his brother-in-law Dakhani, inspite of Banavir’s objection, killed Vikrarajit by cutting his throat^Raval Eaaa (/w ki Vat, on the other hand, says that one day^at a pre­ concerted signal, Banmyir’ attacked Vikramjit with a 1 ^7 dagger and killed him there and then • This is incorr­ ect because had it not been the night time, Panna, the foster-mother of ^dai Singh, could not have substituted her own son in the bed of her ward without detection,

After Aespatching Vikramjit, the assassins procMd ed to kill Udai Sing^^^The nobles could not stand it 1 B g^nd raised some hue and cry 9 . On hearing cries of lamentations from the palace of Vikraiajit and on being informed of the murder of the Rana^®^, Pannahurri­ edly removed her sleeping ward from his cot and substi­ tuted her own son in his place* Banavir soon arrived and tu«- killed the innocent son of Paima, inspite ofentreaties 191 of its weeping mother, and left the palace • Raval

Rana ki Vat says that after killing Vikramjit, Banavir and others moved into the palace of ^dai Singh, who was then taking his mid-day meal. Panna, already infonned of the murder of Vikramjit, removed him outside the fort 192 and got her own son killed instead . This is again impossible because in the broad day light nobody would have failed to dstect the proxy of Udai Singh.

Thus died Vikramjit at the hands of assassins, hired by the nobles. As a prince he did show some diplomacy by shrewdly negotiating with Babar to threaten

Rataiisi. However,as a ruler he eJcMbited in his make all those qualities which make a bad king. Bad company and power spoiled hiut. i&veu II Saka of Chittor failed to cure him. The only fruitful act of his reign was the bestowal of the fief of i^umbhalner on his younger brother ^dai Singh* As Udai Singh is said to have lived at Kuiublalner for 7 years upto the time of his expulsion of Banavir from Chittor^^^i^ in 1541 A .D.,this grant might have been made in cir* 1534 A.D.

Chronology of Vikram.iit:

The reign of Vikramjit is said to be either of 194 195 2 yrs 7 months and 3 days or 2 yrs 9 months and 3 days or 1 96 B yrs 1 month and 3 days . The sum of B yrs 1 month and 3 tiays appear's to be the aggregate of the reigns of

Vikraiujit, iSanavir and Eawat bagh. Havat Bagh Singh ip p M

~s to have ruled for(2 yrs 9 months and 3 days - 2 yrs

7 months and ^ days ») 2 months. By adding 2 yrs 9 months and 3 days to Kartika Shukla 8, 15^9 V.S. (> Nov.5,1532 APD. ^ the date of the assassination o f Katansi in Bundi) v;e get Shravan Shukla 5, 159f V .S . (» Sunday, »^uly 11,

1535 A.D. or Monday August 9|1535 A.D. due to intercallori 21 month). It was the I7th^day after the festival of "Tija” which had offered an occasion to the conspirators to remove Eavat Khan to his father-in-law's place. Thus

Vikraiujit ascended the throne of Mewar on Tuesday, Nov.

5|1v>32 A.D#, recovered Chittor fi*om the Gujarat garrison on 4»1535 A«D« ana was assassinated on either July

11 or August 9, 1535

Family pf_ Vikram.iitt-

197 Vikraiujit is said to liave had 5 wives • Badava the first Devidan gives the itames of onl^ four of them,/three out cf whom immolated themselves on hispyr«^^^« ^Their I names are:

(l) Lakh ^umar d/o dao ouxsena 3olankii

12) iCajaciata d/o Ilao i^ha^/aii^das Solanki.

(3) Harsamde d/o'Rao Ganga Rathor of Maivar {4} Chauhan Chandramanta d/o Hada Kalla <^agmalot*

V«e know from Nensi that his two wives - the daut^hter of Kalla and the daughter of Devidas - had sacrificed their lives in the Second Saka of Cliittor.

Thus four ladies mentioned by Jevidan and one d/o

]>evidas, in all five wives were taken by Vikramjit upto the time of his death. None of these bore any issue to him.

Inscriptions and Coins;-

Two coins of Vikraajit v/ere collected by

Cunningham. On^ their reverse a Persian legend reading the word "Sultan" was given. Cn the obverse the legend “y \ ^ qow*. 20d i«*#-"Rana Vikrainaditya" • A pholographflt of one another coin of Vlkramjit was recently published in the

Journal of Nuaniainatic .Society of India by Dr. Katar®^^^,

The legend on its obvorse reads ^Virkramaaya** and bears in flagarl nmnericals thefigure 1592* On the reverse ^ the ‘PersiLn legend reading "&1 Sultcn bin Sultan" 202 •

No inecripticn of his reign is so far disccvered.

Several copi>er-p3ateB recording the grants of liinde by this Rana lire stoi'ed in Chief Commissioner

Office, Udaipur, One of them records the grant 6f a village to Purohit Jana Shankar on the occasion of the marriage of the Rana with Lakh Kumar d/o Bhavanidas

Solanki at Mandalsadh•

Army of Vikraia.iit:-

204 Vanehavali ^ 2 says that Vikrainjit had 11,000 foo^ 300 elephants Cavalry 70,000 cavalry/and 300 drummers, the figure appears to a misreading of 10,000. So it might be said that Vikramjit had 10,000 infantry,10,000 cavalry, 300 elephants and 300 drummers.

Chariticg of VikramHt:-

No Vanshavali ment.ion8 the daily charities of this

Rana* Kis aggregate charities during his reign were,

^ 205 according to Yanshavali 872 , 500 cows, 1 elephant, 206 15 village£5 and 15 plots of land. Vanshavali 870 and 207 Surya V&nsha give 100 cows, 11 horses , 1 elephant, 5 villages and 15 plots of land. - ^- . *:

FOOTNOTES

(1) Mlrat-i Sikandari, pp,15S-59} Tab. III/3 4 3 . (2) Mirat.,p.172; Tab. III/ 36I; Farishta IV/119. (3) KaTi Rao: Kavitta Vlkramdit anr Udai Singh ra

(Appendix T ), Terse 1. See also Memoirs I I / 341.

(4) Mirat,,p.177. (5) cf. Tab.1 1 1 / 369. (6) Mirat.,p.177. (7) Mirat-i iihmdi, p .243*

(6) Mirat-i Sikandaii,p.l77.

(9) ibid.,p.177; Tab. IXl/369. ( 10 } Mirat. yp.177* (11) ibid.,p.17^.

(12) i b i d .,p .17^. See also Mirat-i Ahmadi, p .244. ( 13 ) ib id .,p . 17^* It was tibout this time that ^asib Shah of Bengal, feartng an attack from Hiimayun, sent pre-

-senbs to Bahadur Shah (Tab.IIl/444-45) for seciiring

his aid. Malik f>iarjan, the envoy of Hasib Shah, had

an interview ;fith Sultan Bahadur at -^’^andu and was

honoured with a special robe of honour (Tab,IIl/445>

1^‘arishta IV/352). ( 14 ) i^lirat. ,p« 17^. This atteaapt at peace by the Hana is mentioned neither in Tab. nor Farishta, Mirat-i

Alimadi (p .244) does not mention the terms. ( 15 ) Mirat.,p.178. Mirat-i Ahmadi (p .244) simply says that these terms were rejected.

(16 ) ibid.,p.17^. ( 17 ) Tatar ^han m i ^ t have readied Chittor in the beginning tff Dec. 1532 A.D., as can be inferred from

the fact that the siege of Chittor lasted for more - V" ir

than three months (Tab.111/369) and came to an

end in March 1533 A .D .(M irat.,p .179).

(id) Mirat.,p,17d.

(19) ibid.,p.179.

(20) Tarikh-i Bahadur Shahl (Quoted in M irat,, p .179)•

(21) Mirat.,p.179.

(22) Farishta IV/73-74. OzaiUdaipur Rajya ka -tUhas,1/396,

and Dr. Cfopinath (op. c it .,p .5 0 ) intez*pz*et thisjw^Ml

for help as sending "Rakli” by ^anoBti to ^umayun.

(23) ibia,,IV/74.

(24) cf« Oulbadan Bogam: Hx»aayun,p.117*

(25)Farishta IV/74. * (26) Tab.Iiy369.

(27) Mirat.,p.179.

(2S)The i-rabic History of Gujarat, 1/227.

(29) Nensi 1/54. (30) Mirat.,p.179. (31) The Arabic ^listory o£ Gujarat, 1/227; M^rat-i Ahmadi,

p.244; Mirat.i Sikandari,p.179. Tab.(III/369) and Farishta (1\T/125) hold that the Rana himself pro!

these terras. Nensi (1/54) refers to these negotiattii|

bub is silent about the p.urty which initiated jlt.

(32) The Arabic History of Grujarat, 1/227. (33) Kensi 1/54. (34) :iirat.,p.179. Farishta (IV/124) and Tab. ( I I I /369) do not liiontion the exact figures of the horses, elephan%|

and the ready cash paid by the Sisodias to Bahadur

Shah, Farishta further does not nenticn the crown

though Tab. speaks separately about the cap and the

ctrown. •\ «!»

(35) Mlrat-l Ahamadi,p»244*

(36) ibid.,p.245.

(37) Mirat-i Sikandari,p.170.

(38) ibid.,pp.133-84; Tab.111/368-69; Fariahta IV/123.

(39) Mirat.,p.l80.

(40) Nensi 1/54.

(41) 1-iirat.,pp. 179-80. Farishta (IV/124) puts this event in 1533-34 A.D. T a b .(III/369) does not give its year or date.

(42) iarat.,p.l80. (43) ibid.,p.180, Though Tab, and Farishta do not refer to the conqpiest of iianthanibhor by Bahadur they ment

it AS—being-in the hands of the Sultan on I H /3 7 0

and IV/123 respectively. However, it should be noted that, according to Farishta (IV/123) the attack on

Hanthambhor was made after the fall of Gagrun in May 1532 A.D. (44) The /irabic history of Gujarat, 1/229. (45) Mirat. ,p ,l80. His camp reached ^ ^ d u on April 1533A.D. (46) Vansha Bhaskar, {^ayukh 183, verse 6 1. (47) Rawal Rana ki Vat, leaf 82(b); i^avi Kao*s Kavitta VikraiQcit aiir Udai Singh ra (Appendix T ), verse 4. (48) Eawal Rana ki Vat, leaf 82(j|) (49) ibid, leaf 83(a) ($0) Kavi Rao, ^avittas (Appendix T), verse 5. ' ^ (51) Nensi 1/54. (52) ef. Mirat,,p.139. (53) ^wal Rana ki Vat, leaf 84(a ), (54) ibid.,leaf 84(a); Kavi Rao, ^avittas (appendix), verse 7. (55) Nensi 1/55. (56) Kavl Eao, KaTlttas (Appendix T), verse 6 , (57) cf« Ib id ., verse 6 and Mirat-i Ahaadl, p«247*

(50) Haval Eana ki Vat, lea€»» ^4(a)«

(59) Kavi Rao, Kavitta (Appendix T), verse S,

(60) Eaval Eana ki Vat, leaf dl9(a)* (61) Kavi Rao, ^avittas (Appendix), verse 11. (62) cf. ibid.,verse 12. (63) cf. ibid.,verse 13. (64) cf* ibid.,verse 14; Nensi l/34« (65) Kavi Rao. Kaviti>us, verse 15. (66) cf. ib id ., verse 1?. (67) cf. ibid.,verses 3,10. Host of the persons referred

to by Nenei (1/55) would have collected by thistime.

(68) ib id ., verse B, (69) ibid., verses 8,9* (70} The Arabic Hietory of Gujarat, 1/226.

(71) Eaval Rana ki Vat, leaf 34(b).

(72) Kavi Rao, Kavittas, verse 9*

(73) Eaval Rana ki Vat, leaf 84(b ).

(74) liavi Hao, Kavittas, versos 10-17*

(75) Vanshavali 872,p .133. ^ cadaoni (1/453) and The

Arabic History of Gujarat {1/226) vaguely hint

about this battle. (76) Haval Rana ki Vat, leaf 84(b ); Kavi Rao, j^avittas, verse I6.

(77) Kavt Rao, ^^avittas, verse l8. (78) Raval Eana ki Vat, leaf 84(a). (79) ibid, leaf 85(b); The Arabic History of Gujarat,1/230. (80) It is said that the siege ended on either March 3, 3 6 5

1535 A.D. (Vanshavali a?2,p.133) or Feb,27,l535 A.D. (Vanshavali ^2^, leaf 64(a)) or J^arch 3,1535 A.D. C^W/U>XLerv\ (Akbar Nama 1/301) after a sieg» of 3 months (Rava).

Hana ki Vat, leaf 37(a))* So it would have began

in Dec.1534 A.D.

(31) The Arabic History of Gujarat,1/230; Mirat. ,p.l35.

(32) Mirat,,p.l35. (33) The asylum to Muhammad Zaman M r z a (T a b .III/369; A1 Badaoni 1/452; M irat.,p.l30j The Arabic History

of Gujarat,1/294; Farishta IV/124; Akbar Nama 1/294),

refusal to extradict him to the Mughals or expel him

from Gujarat (Mirat,,p,l3lj Farishta IV/124; Akbar

Nana 1/294)# writing rude letters to Huraayun (Mipat.,

pp,l3l-34), etc.,

(341 Mirat.,pp.l36; Tab,111/330-81,11/43J Farishta 11/74,

IV/125; Akbar Naraa 1/299; Gulbadan Begam: Humayun

Nama,p.129; Al Badaoni 1/457.

(35) Mirat.,p.l36.

(36) Humayun Nama,p.136,

(37) Mirat.,p,l36,

(33) Akbar Nana 1/300.

(39) Farishta IV/126; Jauhar: Private Memoirs of Emperor

Hurnayun (Stewart Tr. ),p .4* (90) Farishta IM/126. (9 1) The Arabic History of Gujarat,f/233.

(92) Al Badaoni 1/453; Farishta Il/75- 6,IV /l26;T ab.II/49,

111/371-72.

(93) Tab. 11/49,m / 3 72; Farishta 11/75-6; iJcbar Namal/301,

(94) Tab.II/49,III/372.

(95) Ibid.,II/49,111/372; Farishta 11/75. (96} Tab,Il/49,m/372.

(97) A1 Badaoni 1/453-54.

(93) Mlrat*,p,186.

(99) Akbar *‘aiaa 1/301,

(100) Jauhar: Private ^^moirs of Etaperor **uraayun,p.4.

( 10 1) Vansbavali 32S,>eaf 63(b); Vanshavali e?2,pp.128-29} Vanshavali d?8,leaf 68(a)* This erent is wron^y interpretated by Tod (1/365) as sending^akhi by

Karmeti to Humayun.

(102) Sri Ram Sharrna: The Religious Policy of the Mughala,

p .10,

(103) Farishta IV/126, ( 104) Mrat.,p,l87; Tab.II/48. (105) ftaval Rana ki Vat, leaf 36(a), According to a tra­ dition in Mewar, whenever the fort of Chittor be-

in dan/r:er of falling in the hands of some enemy, the

guardian-deity of the fort was ^ propitiated*

44-06-^ through the bftood of some one wearing the royal

imbrella over his head (Tod, op. cit., 1/373), Tho

sons of Padmani H>re crovm and died next day in the

battlefields underisimilar circumstances in I Saka of I Chittor (ibid,1/310), ( 106) logiraj: *^ari Pingal Prabandh (See Appendix 4® U (l), In virtue ofthis coronation of Bagh Singh, his

descendants are called "Devalia Diwan” . ( 107) Raval Rana ki Vat, leaf 86(a), ( 108) Nensi 1 / 94. yj-llflgwa were SafePl,Thei^ names are;

Bhimal, Dhama,Godhiya,Bijhana,Bisola,Baliya,ThahalMW

Charan K.hedi, Khar L>evala, Bharki and Suali ^^ensil/94 (109) Raval Rana kl Vat^, leafes ^6(a)-(b),

(110) Ib id .,lea f ^5(b)» The mine was run under the

supervision of ■‘^akheri Khan Firangi (ibid, ,leaf35(b))

(111) ibid,,leaf 85(b).

(112) ibid.,leaf)»8 S5(b)-^(a). See also l^ensi (1/55) ^^c||

says that Arjun died in the Second Saka and not by

the blowing up of the wall. Surprisinfcgly "Surjan-

charitra" widtten about 25 years after this event

does not mentican this event amongst the exploits of

tlie ancestors of Rao Sur^an.

(113) Raval Rana ki Vat, leaf ^6{a).

(114) ibid.,leaf fi6(a).

(115) ibid.Jleaf ^6(a)J InforrE us that a very fierce

fighting took place on this occasion,

( 116 ) ibid,,leaf 87(a).

(117) Tab.IIl/372.

(118) ^ensi 1/55; Raval Rana ki Vat, leaf 86(a); Vansha^

vali ^28, leaf 64(a).

(119) Nensi 1/55.

(120) i b i d .,1/55. The presence of these ladies in theJfort

is an additional evidence of the Rana* having left

Chittor durinp: t^fe siege.

(121) Rathoran ri Vansliavali, leaf 39(a ); Bankedan

ki iittihasik Vatan, item 1l6.

(122) Raval Rana ki Vatan, leaf 86(b). Some o f these jumysd|

frora the ramparts and many drowned themselves (ibidr,

leaves 86(b)-8?(a)). About 7,000 died by opiim

(Nensi 1/55). A 0

(123) “ensi 1/55J RaTal i^ana ki Khyat, leaf d6(b),

(124) Kavi Rao, Kavittas, Appendix T, verse 19.

(125) Vanshatrali ^2^, leaf 64(a ). ( 126) ^avi itao, KaTittas (Appendix T ), Terse 21, Oza (Raj*

I t i .,I l /l 2 5 5 ) says that he died at Blyjiravapol, ( 127) Osa, op« cit.,fl/l1^2. See also Kavi Rao: KaTittas, Appendix T, verse 21. ( 128 ) iu id ,, 1 1 / 1207. See also ^avi Rao, verse 21, ( 129) Raval Rana ki Vat, leaf 36(b), Vanshavfidi (leaf 54(b) Vanahavali ^72 (p. 134), and VcJjishavali ^7^ (leaf

6^(a)) mention Duda and Chandra Bhan Dallas Dodiya

lihani. Tiie nai^ oi Ahala Sin^h Ajjawat is mentioned

by i W i (1/55). (130) ^«asi 1/ 55. Rawat Satta is raentioned in Vanshavali 372 (p .134) and Vanshavali (leaf 68(b)). The name 01 Panchajpan Pawar is given by Jada Mahada in Sardul Par^aas ka Yuddha, verse 9 and Bankedan ki Aitihasik Vatan, item 1626. (1 3 1 ) Vanshavali 828, leaf 54(b); Vanrfiavali d72,p.134; Vanshavali 878, ileaf 68(b). nccording to the Rathoran

ri Khyat (leaf 36(a)) Devidas Rather s/o Rao Suja of

Karwar died in this Saka. ( 132 ) He Jumped from the wall of the£ fort and died (VflHltt vali 828, leaf 54(b); Vansbav ili 872,p.134; VanshaHl^ 8?8, ^^af 68(a)).

(133 ) Vanshavali 872, p .134. Raehodas appears to be a descendant of l^arara Chand Pawar Pawar (cf.

Sardul Parmar ka Yuddha, verse 9). (134 ) ^avi Rao, Kavittas (Appendix T), verse 21. (135) Raval Itajia ki Vat, leaf 86(b). (135A) Bankedan ki Aitihasik Vatan, item 1006.

( 136) Raval Hana ki Vatan, leaf B6(b),

(137) Nensi 1/55. ( 13d) The place >riiere Bagh fell is still comse^orated

liy a memorial stone • (139) The Arabic History of Gujarat,1/238, The view of

Mirat-i Ahmadi (p .248) that the fort surrendered this

tine is absolutely wrong. ( 140) T a b . m / 372,

(I4t) Hensi 1/55. ( 142) Raval Ran^ ki Vat, leaf ^6(b); Tab.Il/49. (143) Vanshavali izB , leaf 64(a); Vansharali W , leaf 72(b There is no unanimity amongst the authorities about

the date of the fall o f Chittor in the hands of

Bahadur Shah, Vanshavali &72 (p.133) gives March 3>

1535 A,D. (Chaitra K.rishna 30,1591 V.S.) and Akbar ^ama ( I /30 1) gives March 8,1535 A.D. AH other authotrities are silent about the date of this event*

However^ there is an indirect clue, 14 days after / the fall of Chittor to Bal^idar Shah, theSultan left

ClTittor to op|?ose Huitayun (Rawal Eana ki Vat,leaf 86(a

The armies of Humayun and Bahadur stood before each

other in the district of j%ndsaur for a period of

about 2 months (A1 Badaoni I/454J ^'arishta II /7 6 ,IV / 127; Tab,m / 373). Then an April 25,1535 A.D, Bahadur fled his camp (The Arabic History of Gujarat,1/240, 249; Akbar Nama I / 303). Thus a period of about two months and a half passed between the fall of Chittor

and the flight of Bahadur Shah from ^^^andsaur. If

March 8,1535 A,D. be accepted as the date of the fall of Chittor, the date of the flight of Bahadur would in be/the fourth week of Mayt»>hich conflicts with

the date given by Abul Fazl and the Arabic History

of Gujarat* The same is true of the date given by

Vanshavali S72| according to which the date of the

flight of Bahadur would be in the third week of May* tw*. I f the two-month period of^stay of Bahadur before

the Mughal array be not taken literally, feb*27»1535

A.D. fits better in this scheme than the other two

dates* One copper-plate (Cliief Comnissioner Office,

Udaipur, Register entry d9.25^: See Appendix U (II )),

dated March 2^,1536 A.D. also t^fers to this event

on Vikrami tlthi Chaitra Krishna 1 1 , th^date given in Vanshavali^ 3?2 and 37^* Even if this copper-plate

were spurious about the graat -lan4, at least it

testifies to the tradition in Mawar about the date

of the Saka^ which took place on Ghaitra i^risima 11,

( 1591 V.S., i*e*, F eb*27,l535 A.D.

(144) Tab.11/49.

(145) ibid.,11/49; Farishta 11/126, (146) Mirat.,p.l35; The Arabic History of Gujarat,1/229. (147) M r a t .,p .1 ^ . (148) cf. ibid.,p.1^. Rawal Rana ki Vat (leaf 56(a)) gives his name as BahoAim Khan Balakhi, i . e . , Burhanulfiiulk

Bayani.

(149) Raval Eana ki Vat, leaf ^6(a). ( 150) The Arabic History of Gujarat,1/239* (151) Tab.III/372,II/49-50; Farishfca II/76,IV/l26j Akbar

Nama 1/301* ( 152) Tab.11/49-50,111/372; Farishta IV/126* Abul Fazl (1 / 2 i

301) says that Humayun was at that time at Ujjain, I while Mirat. (p.ldS) holds thathe moved frcan Gwalior.

It appears that after or aboiit the time of the fall

of Chittor, Humajnin moved from Sarangpur to Ujjain,

and when Bahadur left Chit tor to oppose him, he also

proceeded to meet him frcm UjjJain* (153) Tab. 111/372,616; A1 Badaoni X/454; Farishta H / 7 6 , rv/126; Gulbadan: Humayun ^ama,p.131j Akbar *‘aina 1/301, Mirat. (p.lSS) purports to say that they met

^newhere near Chittor.

(154) Tab.11/50,111/372-73} Farishta Il/76,IV/127; Mirat., p.lSS; Akbar Kama X/302. ^bul Fazl adds the name of r» Taj Khan with Sadr Khan vinile Fairishta does not

mention even the nam© of Sadr ^han.

(155) Tab.III/373. (156) Mirat.,p.Ids.

(157) A1 Badaoni 1/454; Farishta II/7 6 ,IV /l2 7 ;T a b .IIl/3 7 3 .

(158) Farishta IV/127; Tab.III/372. ( 159) Farishta H/76; Tab.IIl/373. (160) Tab. 11/51,m /373; Farishta II/76,IV/127; Mirat.,p.l8^ Al Badaoni 1/454; The Arabic History of Gujarat I / 24O. (16 1) Mirat.,p.ia^; Tab.Il/5i ; A^ Badaoni 1/454. (162) M irat.,p. 1 ^ ; The Arabic History of Gujarat, 1/232;

Akbar I^ama (1/303) speaks a bout theburstingof guns 0ll3| ( 163) Tab.II/51,IIl/374; Farishta 11/76-7,IV/1 27jM^rat., p,lS9; Akbar Nama 1/303; Al Badaoni 1/454. ( 164) Al Badaoni X/454. ( 165) Pathu Shah ki Bavadi Inscription (Rampura: Pub. ^agari Pracharini PatrIJfca,VII/4 ) , verse 9. (165a) Tha Arabic History of Gujarat,1/240,249;Akbar Sama ?. -J

(I65b) Tab.Il/51,III/374; Farishta 11/77,IV/l2d. ( 166) Mirat,,p,lS9; Farishta IV/l2a, (167) Mirat,,p.1l97* (160) Earal Rana ki Vat, leaf ^7(a)

( 169) Nensi (MS), leaf d7(a). This £act is not found in the translation. ( 170) Patra from the collection of ^^athulalji

Vyas, Udaipur# For ”Hur Patras'* see Tiwari: Udai

Singh and the Sur Emperors of Delhi",IHQ XXX/4/3l6

n ,25. leaves (1 7 1 ) itaval Rana ki V a t ,/W «S S6(a)-(b)* For the text of this piece See Appendix W«

(172) Nensi 1/53-4.

( 173) VanshaYali ^28, leaf 64(a)} Vanshavali S72,p.l35i Vanshavali Byd, leaf 63(a)*

(174) Akbar Nama (1/321) say», By good luck he tHuma-

yun) came up with them (the followers of Asakari)

near Chit tor? However, Dr. Clopjinath (op. c it.,p .5 7 )

holds that this time Huaayian entered into the fort*

( 175 ) Kaval liana ki Vat, leaves ^ (b )- 3 9 (a ). (176) cf. Tab.III/346. ( 177) Rajavali (without pagination). ( 178) Raval Rana ki Vat, leaf ^9(a)j See Appoidix W. (179) Rajavali (v^itl^ut pagination).

(idO) Mewar ka Hanaun ki Pidhiyaun ki Khyat, leaf l6(a)«

(ldl) Vanshavali B2B, leaf 62(b); Vanshavali leaf 69(a)< (Id2) cf. Rawal Rana ki Vat, leaf 39(b).

(1^3) Mewar ke Ranaun ki Pidhiyaun ki K.hyat, leaf l6(b). (1^4) Vanshavali 6 2 B, leaf 62(b); Vanshavali 872,p.135; Vanshavali B7 B, leaf 69(a). (1^5) Vaushavall ^7^, leaf 69(a)j Rajavali also says that

Banavir got Vikranjit killed.

(l36) Vansliavali ^23, leaf 62(a); Vanshavali 572,p*135» Vanshavali ^ 3 , leaf 69(a).

(Id?) Raval Rana ki Vat, leaves S9(a)«(b),

(1^3) ibid., leaf 39(a); Raj avail (without pagination);

Udaipur toe Ranaun ki Pidhiyaim ki Khyat,leaf 16(b).

(Id9) Raval Rart. ki Vat, leaf 39(b).

(190) Rajavali (^-dthout pagination); Raval Rana ki Vat,

leaf 39(b)* Mewar ke Ranaun ki Pidhiyaun ki Khyat (leaf 16 (b)) says that it was the foster father of

Udai Singh who saved the life ofi^-w his ward by

sacrificing his own son.

(191) Rajavali (without pagination); Mewar ke Ranaun ki

Pidhiyaun ki Khyat, leaf l6(b),

(193) Rajavali (without pagination); Raval Rana ki Vat,

leaf 92(b).

(194) *^war ka ■‘‘tihas, item 228; Papers fxora the collectio

of late Shri Motilalji Shrotriya; Vanshavali 828,

leaf 62(a); Vanshavali 372,p.136.

(195) Vanshavali 323, leaf62(b)f*Sisod Vanshavali (item

gives the round figure of three-quarters and two

(196) Surya Vansha, leaf 51(a). (197) Vanshavali 823,leaf 63(a); Vanshavali 373,leaf 69(a) (193) Badava Devidan; Mewar ki Raniyaun ki Khyat, leaf 2 (b ). The maiden o f d/o Rao Ganga was lai Kumar (Bankedan ki Aitihaslk '^atan, item 118 ).

(199) "ensi 1/55.

(2OD) VJilliam Wilfrid Webb: Currencies of Raj put ana, p. 7. (20|) Journal of Numismatic Society of India iVl/ll,pp*

234-35. f

(2Q3J Tiwari: A Coin of ^^aharana Vikramajit o f Kewar,

ibid, IVIII/I. ?uJU,vu VlA'V.d-.C U / JS" (204) Vanshavali i572,p.132,

(205) Vanshavali 372,pp,135- 36,j

(206) VanehaTcili leaf 63(a). (207) Surya Vansha, leaf 51(a) r (¥EfT)

flT^R 7T^ IfUm fF

v|^ fTT? R?cf? 7T=! % T

ffrT^T 5 «rr=r?

HTt> ^fcT ^T3? aff3TT ^ ^7

FTTF^T^ ^*r^Tirt 3p|iT^ f^fiT rfg qrarr i ?i i

?> rr^

-47^^ Jf’l 4 f ?.=7 c^«7 I I ^ I I

^5irr)3T (?s<'^) cT^ f-irrw

^Z f T^T ^"R I 111 I

tr^i^Tr^ mTT^f’ ^«?5 an^r

^T^T HT'< ^-tjllxll

'^'IT ^TT M-' ^^'>5

TRcT TTf?^ IM 1

^rT ?rftT ’Sfvr ^Tcf

^TT? (TTcT ^ 7 ^ nTcT df^ ^ ^?r g»7? f^T7^ fg f ^Tj %T ^=T

tT5 ^;fr ijrifr vTtS gft

ffcT mft fTT^T

5WT^ 4?5 ^Tf5 ^rtfT? ?TR 551^7 tfTfrf aftg T;f^T ^TTT ^■Ttn- t?T7TTr

xiti ^TTcT Jt\ qrci

?rt^ cft^

gafr

>rT *1T^T lTT»Tr-71 U I I r

•:3T^5i «rnr ?T?rr? «r^

n^'TTH f?T% ‘?T?f ^T>

V R *^cfr VTTf^i gr7L.'T^

?q rrrr ^ trR ms^r sttc=? t?

^r^^trrz ^ ^ 1 hsi I

^ rrr^ wjv^^ 3»itrr

f^crrrft 3rtTTT t w

fg XI? fa^ ^T’T ^-^fVTT

^5f7 rn? TirsiT ^t ^T >Trr'f?n

v'f?cfr5i ^T'lT ^rr ^fr^r

tr^? ^rrr nTcT>r tr?? ^fiiyr^ eTt ^ i i^ i i

5ft ^'! >-1^ TK ^?rr^ fni^T^ 'm ^ttf^ >^TtfV

cTi?^' cflri ^fT?T rfrrfr

qrlT^tr i?-R ^T=T ^T7 ^ 7 ^

35*?ftifr VT^ I « I I trrn

^ TT^? % 7T^fT TT^I I ?o I I 5TT 7T;? *F> ^rtJcft ^T^l I ?VI

^ >ft rT3 i mi i i?:r5fT VTfT?5T ^t\ 111^ vt’i ?»i I

«T4 rr^ rr^i 1 ?yi I

^IT^tiTZ \ ttt? tl’t rpt w :\ rrvf^^ I I ?M I

?T*fr ^ t t t ^ *fr r m r t t t t i i i i

^-T > ^i-crr^ci uY ifr ^cTT rr=?cTi i ?«i i T r,t )

^cft ?^rt WT>=f T]-^ %cT «

3?ft*r 'T? ^

n't^ «T? ^\^l ^13 «

yi

^Tft fyr ^ > T ^ ^T^rvfr w t^^ 11 ?

TT^t FI- 'j1il?5

3Xr? # 1 ^ ^tT 5TTFI I ?o I I

fcT^ §T TPT «r ftr Cftln-

^J ^cj-q qf^aft cfi ^^T'^fT f!\

McT ?r?rr^ sf.? gvfjf:^cfe ^T 7: ^ ^

tr?? cfr^ -iT'^ ^

3fs «iYr ttiT ^'-T 7cT irrfr^

T#^i T\^ ^TFT^7 tpfT^i Uoi I

?TIT ^cTTi^ 7% TTTT^cT

q^TT *rrRc?1 ^ ?^tir

t€? ^TR Tf? 5T*? UT t'\^

i:r^:7iTt TH^-t’lT rTTTtrfcT

jrVf^iTT R"R *rf? ^ tt t t fft^r

^ ^ ^cT ^ fg^^ll^?ll

rr

wnfY ^ f^TlTR f^TFRI u^l I

^ fsr^PT F# ^ ^ 1 7 ^^T3r

0F?r >?jaf ^ IT?5^ tTT.T VWf^^r-e?firtv fJcT Ff^ rrfycT firrsfT

f=r« ^ T ?rrf? mtc^^t ^ »fr?^ ^^cti u?i i IT? trf^ vfr fiffjT

^ giTR jr? rnr f^rr^ q-fr

^^^. ifLT ^jrtv-j f^rTTi^

4-T^^ Sfc^

?fttl t^T^?

W > VT^F ?f=f n& e5f

5T€ f<=fc5T^i ^rfTff (TT^

trtOTT fafR ^ a n ? ^

35 «r^ tfT? ^^0 flcrt) u h 11

0TTr tJ?f?T W l ^==1^ f^'^TT

2t5 ir^1 r^rft ^ ^--^. W ? ll^t;ll

'4^1^ §(T J^J?5 'flfs m r m

VT^ ^*R >:TT^ ^T?l: >■ vjrrrr 1 Uo I I f«tJ iFtY feSTH fiTT^ i|TSf7 niTT =T rrrfl^ Tf? i\lT f^fTTTrf

TT? TT5 nr? f^iTTtT TiT7i7 f? cfV

3^T3 ^ OTiR ^=T 2^7

■^3^7 ?Rr TT=r 5pr 9T^T ^ T??TfV^II V I I

tT^ Tj?

T^

fsrrr'^

oCTTIT Art <75^ CR^f

5i rr5f f T C ^

5

TTf't'F ’StPr < 4 C R

f^cfr? nt«TT ?=^T7

Tf^ 'rr?fl'T Jcrft^T

5ft3 ^57 IZ ^f\iT

Vrs TT«# ^Tf^^rr

^ ^ HTT «TfSTTT ^ 3pt^l Uol I

T R ^nr ^nr ffr^ rrrr 5^ m ^ W T ^fTT

g^ g? TiTr'tc^

#7H ^fi? rrr^ ^5f TratT rrq €?tf

f*rf« 4) J ^

f5^T3^^^T

^>:TR n^THi?

f-RT ^TTT TTT

^Pr? R^TtTTf? fcT?J cTc^,^ ttt

^nr cfi=! ^cT i m ^TIT TTf^n ^rft-nr t? tT'V

>I?5Tr7 ^ TT« ^=r ^t\ ^ ^>113^11

?ra ^frf w fcTTT cfig^

efrq frfTT ^T tT?T rrft

rf? fcT^Tl- ^T^T 9^ TT^7 ^

ijrrr g m ^ j m T f^fT «wrr ^

jf.f^ oJrrF arrf^ ^ ^rf^ w?rf^ t ^i 9>:T7

Tfs ^ iV? ^ Tfs rr> t\?>^ ^ ^ T i U 3 i i

ftrf« ^IT? j^TTT ?^TT sr?T^ irr?Yc^ ^JTTi? rr*? ht?53f fiY^7 ftrn ^>3 AQ fir^? WfX iJ^rtcT *1 ^T?j 57H

3 f?tF 9 ^ l?yl I afT^TT ■feTTf^^ WTTr^r^ tjT fqFT^ fq?>

"Jl >. fi^> tp-fT =r? m

r?r%tTTJT f 3rrd*r jht f^ir

?> =f|-^ ^ ^ ‘'’Yjjrcf irr«iPiTY

W trg* ^rfi ?|fT fcTf^T iTT I iM I ITT r^Wt fsfir

^ i T TT»7F 5?% vmlN- v-TT^r -<^T fgtr FtTR^ ^fn trr>

iTf^rr'7 rrft? 2?;3r

^Tif- wiiuii

^cTT fcT-^T ^5 TTfF % Tf^T

^TWfcT g*f\5T? STTfr TTiT

cfi g v^^rrj wrr ^trr?

?R im ^T^R ?rr7

f5(^ wf^ ?5 ^ffcT %? TT« g-f?

2cT=T 2Ff

gfrf-r r R ^ r R 3crfr ^

9^rf^Tgfr ?r^'^T?r ^ vt^i ct^ct iff?

m r ^Rti f^rr^ ?? ^

trY^ cflT^^^ f

3iq >iT ¥fT

5RI U ,'! I

qrf^ ftT W^flT ifr^ifl^T ^

^ f r T T ^ 7 ^ciT ^T5j ^T'sfr^ f^;r «TCHt7 IJ^TT 17^^

^'f^ rr^T j m j r ^--c ^rrr rf'^

jTirt f«T 3-5? ^fcT f?^-TT^ rT^i n « 11

______ffftg fr^F?rR f^mTfr5,3'i;iT^T T trfrf5r^(vEF) JO

^Tfi^cT P«rr^: 7T^VSTR

?irf5tTr 3 1 ^ ^ =fr ^rnT5

ifr ^ f^T^TfcrrscT tr^ ^ ^

ssVf^ ¥*T.TT.'^ ^ ^-?T t\

^'Tt g^fiW vfiT 3T?r?

T=^ t.^

fmr ^q^TT frrs fiTc^f

f?T^ gvr ^cTT fTH ^^fcW?5

I^f^f j m rPT ^fJrjTiT f i R c T ^ I I ?l I

^ §t 9Tt/cr

fcTvr? tTrf'1 yrf^' TfT^r fe ift?? f^=7

^ ijjjm qT?^ ^ II?

^[Ifr TfTH iTTq 3TTI.-fq3=r ?frr

tif^ TT^T rr^ ?rf?T

?rf? rfrrf-^f7 ^ fJfT7^ I UI I 3 o

Appendix If (I) ;

Tprr s n r ^ Srrr^ ^ tFTTHPv ^ trr^ '^tctnr^ ¥ t w grfhr

^ ^ is n m ^ rpT, ......

^r^r £fl-^ fTTT, ^ 3 ^ ^ 3 ^ m v c(r?r ^ 3 » ■wvnr, vnt ^

TPT m Hlfr ^ ,tiT

2*tt far eft sra, ^ m m *ncf

. . f ^ r f ^ f t f ^ ij4r •

(«TfW «ftW^T=RT WTTT ^>f^, ^ fW ^ VHTQ ) AjQpandlx *tf* (II) i

«?TTPI» II

11 q^Tnrf^rrnf ^T m rr ^ 1% 11 iFfTl^d^ SiT3f1" ^ v i t 11 W feiT I ^

11 ^ « f ^ m t r 5 p r : V 331 - 11 T 3={n^3rr ^ ^ fSe 4 11 ^TFk irf^ ^ 3fhrpfh ^ - 11 cf^ sri^ I ^ ^ -ft 1*3^ II ^ H 1 1 ^ It ^ s^fsnnr 11 m ^ {• 11 «rrf^ ‘irriicr f ^ « 11 « Appendix M ( I I ) : ( Conbd,,*)

M ... 11 ^ ^ >5f ^ 3r »« < ^ . . . 11 ’Trt

. . n . . . H ii m H

(%t: - u , {\\r ffef. ^rfW r w ^ )

»» is w ^ ^ t f ^ C N r r ^ H rP^ )^)itrT m r i t

n\\ II

.. if. qir^rnMt- ^ ^ jirc?!. Ap.>rniix :

NTftt thIi ^ « n % yi^sr f 3RTTT f cJty ^2n* I ^ OTtr ^ ^?3h" ^ ^ r tptt t :si^ w i^rrafl* ^ n ?Tr

^ ^ I ^ ^ =1 fcr 9t$niT t p t t PNw t P < ^ ^ I cTcarrr 4jnf1" i ■*k ^ trrw '*TR(t- ifew i ^ ^ ^ afR«T^ w r ^ w I ?Enr H w i f^icRt* arat- zTfr iTr § qnrHlt I TT^ ?frw ^ P ^ ^ =TTT^ vTSTtr I ^ »rrrt 2teT:r Sir ^ iter ^ t t t ^ at ztirmrr fr ^ ‘ ^ ^ 3rr«*rr d c +fr fw rr i ^rcR2f?fr iirfsn- ^ ^racJr ftpJ^Efr I frit ^ ^ «fl* ^ ^5T ^ c(»^^r g I jfPFssr *frw ^ 5i»i^ ^ OTfrr srr^ ^ I =fr arm ^rj- s n ^ | r ^ «£rra^ tr f ^ +<^4^*!^ 5trw ^r wmvr >i3JT ^rt wr «rrtT ¥tirr f •

.. TT^ TPfT ^ tTf a «. CHAPTER IX

MAHARANA BAMAVIR

(1535- 1541)

Baiurrlr, a natiiral son of Prit&TiraJ^ (the eldest son of Rana Raimal) and Phulde^t aseended the throne of Mevrar after the assassination of Vikrarajlt

either on July 12 or August 10,1535 A .D ., the day following the murder of Vikrama|^lt« Nothing is known about his early life . It is reported that he fought bravely against the ccnbined forces of Gujarat and 3 Malwa on behalf of Sanga • He left Mewar and Joined

Bahadur Shah in the reign of Hatansi^. He was recalled to Mewar by the nobles after the reconquest of Chittor from the Gujarat garrison to assassinate Vikramjit^,

He soon won the confidence of Vikramjit^ and his brother-in-law Dakani (Daksha Singh) killed the Rana inspite of the opposition of Banavir7« The attempt of

Baiunrir on the life of Udai Singh, immediately after the murder of Vikramjit, alienated many nobles from a him • However, they were too weak to oppose the usurper who had then the supppz*t of the nobles like Karam Ghand

Pawar^, As we shall see below, the ri^reneo W in Uie

^ontenporary records to^Basar, Jain minister of

Banavir,W and te Chil Mehta J,is thevcommandant A of Chittor y might prove that Banavir had the support of the Jains as well. The complicity of Duma Mehta in cattle-lifting during the reign o f Vikramjit may be cited as an instance of the opposition of the *^ains to him. However,