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^<teup4^^mf-fei»epity of 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' . <xn*^ It isreported that Sura Solanki, Mala Solanki^ Ashokaraal 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.