ORIGIN OF THE CHAUHANS.

The Chauhans were an important Rajput clan

in North India during early medieval time. This dynasty

was founded "by Vasudeva. In the beginning, the Chauhans

had to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Pratihara Rajputs, ,

whom they helped in their fight against the Arab expansion.

But^ when the Pratihara power was weakened after;; the death
of Mahipala ( c 914-942 A.D.)* their former feudatories^

Including the Chauhans of Sarabhor made vigorous attempts

to assert their independence. The Chauhans practically

. became Independent by 973 A.D., when the Harsa Stone

Inscription was Inscribed* Vigraharaja. II, the author of

T
this inscription, not only” rescued the fotune of his family

and the goddess of victory from the distress that had

fallen them”1, 2but also made some new conquests and was

served by feudatories.® Ajayapal Chauhan founded Ajmer in

eleventh century A.D. and Visaladeva captured Delhi about

1150 A.D.3

1. Haraa Inscription.Verse 21 E.I. Up. 119

2. Ibid V. 24 also E.C.D. p.30
3. J.A.S.B. (1886) Pt. 1 p.42 V.22.
 .
-* 2 t—

With the acquisition of independence and

sovereignty, the Chauhans faced some new problems. They

had to fight against the Chalukyas of Gpjrat^ They could

not remain on good terms with the neighbouring powers- the

Gahadavalas of KanauJ^ and the Chandels of Je Jakabhukti3.

e
Even they failed to win the support of their breth^rn, the
Chauhans of Nadol, who generally sided with the Chalukyasf

So, when the Chauhan hero, Prithviraja III, fought with the

Muslim invader, Muhammad Ghori, the above mentioned Indian

princes, instead of rushing to his help, were silently watching

the course of events. It may, however, belaid that the Chauhans,

by that time, were not lacking in military skill and valour.

They had defeated the Muslims decisively in the first battle

of Tarain and the second battle would not have been fought

at all, had they been able to make good use of their earlier

1. The struggle had already started in-the reign of Vigraharaja II

who defeated the Gurjara ruler, Mularaja and plundered his
country. (l.C.D. p.SO) It entered a more bitter Phase in ___
the reign, of Axnoraja Chahamana (c 1133-1151 A JD.-). PrithviraJalllj
acting on the advice of his minister, Kadarabavasa,
(P.V.XI Vs.2-4) did not come to the help of the Chalukyas when,
they were attacked by Muhammad Ghori, taking both the Gujaratis
and the Muslims alike as his enemies. He sMowed the wind and*
reaped the whirl-wind. '

2. Jayachandra Gahadavila of KanauJ was a sworn enemy of Prithvirajall

at the time of the Muslim invasion.

3. E C.D. P.75 The Mau Stone Inscription shows friendly relations

between the Gahadavalas and Madanavarman Ghandel (A.D. 1129r1163c)
These good relations probably continued in^the reign of Paramardin,
the Chandel monarch, in the time of Prithviraja III.

4. E.C.D. PPS 122, 134 & 135. •

 3

success. They spared the enemy and allowed them

opportunity to prepare for another invasion* while they
Ol»
themselves were engaged In baneful wars against their
o
neighbours and indulged in revelry. They failed to understand .

the strength and strategy of Muhammad Ghori and sustained

a disastrous defeat at his hands. After that, the descendants

of Prithviraja established their power in Ranthambhor where

they tried to retrieve their lost fortune.® Hamiradeva of

this line was a worthy successor of Prithviraja. He challenged

the immeasurably superior might of Alauddin Khalji,and.drove

back his army more than once from the gate, of Ranthambhor.
Subsequently, however, in July 1301 A.D_., he was defeated
at the hands of the MHsllms and killed himself. It was

treachery in his own ranks rather than the militaryt prowess

of the ene-ny, which contributed to his defeat.1
4 2
W5$h
5 3
6 7his
8

fall, the main line, of Sambhor disappeared,, but other branches

of the Chauhans such as the Chauhans of Sirohi.®* Champaner,®

Chandwar^, Mainpuri®, Orissa etc. sprang up and each of them

1. E.O.D. p.84
2. E.C.D. p.85 and p.324 _
3. E.C.D. Ch.X. The Chauhans of Ranthambhor. (Govinda to *
Jaltrasimha ) pp 102-106.

4. E.C.D. Ch. XI pp. 106-115.

5. Dr. G.H, Ojha- History of Sirohi.
6. Ind. Ant. VolA VI 1877 pp I ff.
7. Uttara Bharati Vol. X Ho.3 p. 13-17.
8. Chauhana Chandrika p.40.
 4 s-

continued to rule for a considerably long time.

It is unfortunate that the origin of this

remarkable people, the Chauhans, is still wrapped in mystery.

Some scholars regard them as fire-born. To some, they are

foreign settlers in India and to others, the indigenous

people of this country belonging to either the Kshatriya

or the Brahmin caste. Seme describe them as the descendants

of the sun or moon or even of Lord Indra. The Ghauhans by
their her|oic exploits cast a halo of romance over India and

it is not strange that mythical traditions developed around

them establishing their divine origin, toe should make a

scientific study of these traditions before rejecting them

as fictitious or accepting .them as the facts of history.

— — •
Rajasthani bards and chroniclers regard the

Chauhans as fire-bom. To suit their purpse, they narrate a

story, which is popularly known as the Agnikula myth. There,

in that story, it is stated that when the world was oppressed

by the Mlechchas, the sages, led by Vasi§thajf, created from

a sacrificial pit at mount Abu three warriors- Barihara,
Chalukya and Paramlra, to subdue the Mlechchas. But.unfortunately

none of them succeeded in the task. Thereupon Vasistha dug m other

i *
pit and created a new hero, who was called Chauvana because
of his quadriform figure* It was this divinity, who, with

the assistance of the deity, Asapuri, drove the demons back

to Patala and established the heroic dynasty of Chauhan. This^
 —s 5 t—

incident has been elegantly described in the **KosalanandaM

of GangadharcuMisVa , a poetical work on the Chauhan rule in

1
Western Orissa written in the 17th Century A.D.

This story, however, is of very late

origin, it being first propounded by Chand Bardai in

his *PrithvIra3araso’2 which appears to have been composed

about 15th century A.D.3 Since then, it gained popular

credence and was developed in Nainsi,s,Khyat^,Ham1!liraraso,

of Jodharaj® and in 'Vamsabhaskara' of Suryamalla MisVana®.

The last mentioned work went so far as to ascertain the date

of the first fire-born Chauhan as 3531 years before Kali g

began, which is historically absurd. That the myth is of

very late creation can also be proved by the fact that it is

unknown not only to Someswarafs Bijolia Stone inscription

of V.S.1226 (A.D. 1169) but also to JayanaJra*s *Prithvlra,•)avi,1 ay

composed in the life titne of Prlthvira^a III (1179-1192 A.D.)

and even to the ‘Hamraira Mahakavya* of Wayachandra Suri

ascribed to the 14th Century. These authors would certainly

have utilised the myth to glorify their patrons, had it been'

known during their time.

On the other hand, the claim of the Chauhans -

%

to be of solar origin is testified by literary evidences and

e
epigraphical records dating as early as 10th Century A.D. The

Harsa Stone Inscription of V.S, 1030 ( 9?3 A.D.)7 •

" ““ ” ” : ~ """"" T 1 ~~ \
1. K«*N. (Sonepuri Ed) canto II vs 18-20
2. Part I pp 45-51 , _ _
3. The Age and Historicity of Prithvira^araso-
I.H.Q. December, 1940. - _
 ■T

-i 6 s-

- ^ 1 - / O
the •Prithvirajavijaya,J a Chauhan Prasasti probably

of Vigraharaja I?, the •Hammira Mahakavya the

Surjanaeharita**
4 25of36 Chandrasekhara and also the ’Jaya Chandrika®

of Prahallada Dubey, describe the CHauhans as Solar Kshatriyas.

This theory of solar origin of the Chauhans finds support

from many modern scholars like G.H. O^ha and C,V. Vaidya.7 8 9

- — Q
In the Sevadi plates of Ratnapala, the

Chauhans are said to have descended from Indra, the Lord

of the eastern quarter. But this theory not being corroborated

by any other record does not carry historical importance.

Prof, Dasaratha Sarma ingeniously suggests that the epithet-*

*Prachidikpat^i1 mentioned in the above plates might have

been used for the sun by its writer^.

1, CAWT0 2,Verse 71
_

2, Verses 35-37 ?) Jf&l ^

3, Verses 14-1? 11

4, Verses 151-162
5, J.C, (Appendix) ^ f?T 2^1^illsj ^ ^

fa eT33& "Zf5T ifcf ^ ^ *»

6, History of Rajputana I pp 72-?4 %

7, History of Medieval Hindu India Vol II •

8, E.I. XI p,308

9, E,C,D, p 5.
 7 :

In the 'Kosalananda* the Chauhans are

, t 1
regarded as Somavamslns i.e. of lunar line. Beeords,

supporting this theory, are not many and the earliest of

them is the Achalesvar inscription of Luntigadeva (v.s.lS*7?

or 132© A.D.) where it is stated that the first Chauhan was

ereated to put down the demons, disturbing the sacrifice of

2. 314.ke Agnikula theory, it is of very late origin

the sages1

and also of mythical character. Hence we may safely discard

it.

Many scholars, however, believe that the

Agnikula theory, though a production of purely poetical

imagination, is not without any historical importance, for,

it presupposes a purification movement by the Brahmins for

the elevation of the foreign tribes.like the ^gakss, Kushanas

& Hunas who had settled down in India, to the traditional

• # 9
%

Kshatriya Varna, These people had already got into the Indian

society and though the Hindu theologians theorltlcally degraded

them, many of them socially associated themselves with the

Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Thus, there was a difference between

sanctlmonius' injunction on paper and actual practice in life.

THIs led some scholars to believe that the Brahmins, in their

eagerness to find.their champ4«ion$ against the Jainas and

the Buddhists, gave these foreigners^ religious sanctions^**

o 1. E.C.D, p.5.

2. Canto II, verse 18.

3. B.l. IX p*72*
 8

as the basis of their elevation to the second Varna of

the orthodox organisation.

This theory of foreign origin of the

Chauhans was first started by Colonel Tod,who, however,

held that these people are descendants of the non-Aryan^

Takshakas.* William Crooke, while editing Tod’s famous

'Annals', accepted the myth as truth, V,A, Smith, supporting

this theory, opines that the. Chauhans are related to the

three other Agnikula races who were ogigipal.ly foreign

barbarians but gradually were Hlndulsed through matrimonial '

<Lt
relation with the Brahmins and Kshatriyas and last were raised

to the Neo- Kshatriya order after a rite of purgation by

fire.
Viewed superficial^ this theory may appear

reasonable. But if we study it a little carefully, we find

that it is based on the Agnikula story, already referred to

above, and as such it is more mythical than historical. It

is also not supported by the data of physical anthropology

as pointed out by Prof. G.S. Ghurye.4

Br. D.E. Bhandarkar in his illuminating

paper 'Foreign elements in the Hindu population', has attempted

1, TodT Atinals and Antiquities of Rajastan. 1 p.80.

2, Introduction to Tod's Rajastin p. XXXI
3, E.H.I. pp.424-431
4, G.S. GHurye- Caste and Race In India, p. 113*114.
 -s 9 s-

hac .attempted to prove that the Chauhins are descendants

of a foreign tribe called the Khazars and originally

gd_. -
they belong to some priestly section.1 He has based his

theory on a coin of Vasudeva whom he identifies as the

< _

Vasudeva, the founder of the Sakambhari line of the

Chauhans. On the obverse of the coin,is a Sassanlan-Pahlavi

» ^
legend which reads *Saf Varsu Tef * i.e. *S8i Vasudeva*

and on the margin* Saf Versu Tef- Wahraan Multan Mulka*

t ^
meaning * Sri Vasudeva Vahman, king of Multan*. On the
reverse there is a legend "Sri Vasudeva" in Devanagari

script and " Tukam, Zaulistan, Sapardalakshan "in Pahlavi

meaning Takka, Zabulistan and Sapadalaksha. Dr. Bhandarkar

thinks that the legend *Vahman* as had been readx by Ranson,

should be read as ‘Chahamana’, because, he argues, the

letters "Ch" and **V" in old Indian script are so similar

* *

to each other that one can easily be mistaken for the other.

The argument, no doubt, is valid. But the coin, under

■j

our discussion, has, according to Rapson, the legend

*Vahman* not in Devanagari but in Sassanian- Pahlavi seript

where the letters "V" and "Ch" are never ambiguous.

Vasudeva of the coin, therefore, is not Vasudeva Chahamana,

- ^

but 4- Vasudeva Vahmana. Hence, we cannot accept it as a

sufficient proof for the foreign origin of the Chauhans. %

1. Ind. Ant. Vol. XL 1911

2. Rapson- Indian Coins pp. 30-31.
\
 o

-l 10 t-

To prove that the Chauhans originally

belonged to some priestly class, Dr. Bhandarkar puts forth

two reasons, viz., the marriage of the Brahmin poet^Rajasekhara

with the Chauhan lady Avantisundari and the Bijolia inscription

In which the Chauhan ruler, Samanta, has been called a

Brahmana of Vatsa Gotra. We may discard the first reason,

because Anuloma marriage was still then in vogue in India.

For Instance, Brahmana Harischandra, the ancestor of Pratiharas

of Mhndor, married a Kshatriya lady, Bhadra* and Sangamaraja
of Kashmir married his daughter to a Brahmana.^ But it is

not possible to reason out the evidence of Bi^olia inscription

/ - - - 3
where the phrase "Viprah Srivatsagotrabhut" is a clear

statement of the Brahmin origin of the Chauhans. Tthis theory

further finds support in Jan*s "Kyam Khan Raso" which describes

the Chauhans as the descendants of Vatsa of the Jamhdagmya

Gotra and also in Sundhir and Aehalesvara inscriptions which

too state that the first Chauhan was born from the eyes of
the sage, Vatsa,

1. E.I. XVIII p. 95.

2. RaJataranginI VII pp. 10-12.
3. Here we accept the reading of Dr. Bhandarkar.
4. Verses 45-48 . *
5. Verse 4
6. Verse 7.

\
 11

The question now arises, if the Chauhans

are of Brahmin origin, ho:/ can their transition to Kshatriyahood

be accounted for ? The answer is not difficult. In ancient

India,the line of demarcation between the Brahmins and the

Kshatriyas was not sharply defined and it was crossed sometimes

by intermarriage and sometimes by change of occupation, Iif

most of the ancient royal coujtts, we find Brahmin ministers with

a great love for power. Instances of usurpation of throne by

them are not rare in history. Drones Kripa, Asvatthama of the

Mahabhlrata and Parsurama of the Ramayana were Brahmin generals.

In the first quarter of the seeond century B.C., Brahmin Senapati

Pushyamltra overthrew the Mauryas and established the Sunga

dynasty.1 The
2 Sungas were followed by another Brahmin family,

the Kanvayanas whose founder, Vasudeva, assassinated the

over lib idinouxs Devabhuti, the last Sunga king in c ?2 B.C..

When the Kanvas were ruling in Northern India, there*appeared

in the south a powerful Brahmin dynasty known as the Andhras

or>the Satavahanas. In the Nasik inscription, the Satavahana

ruler, Gautamiputra, is described as the unique Brahmin (Eka Batohana]

1. H.C. Raychaudhuri- Political History of Aacient India, p. 307-308

TJihe Divyavadana, however, erroneously, represents Pushyamitra
as a son of the Maurya Pushydharma (XXIX, p.433)

2. Harsa Charita ( Eng. Trans, by Cowell & Thomas) P.193.

%

\
 -* 12 • a»

1
and the destroyer of the pride and conceit of the Kshatriyas*

The Pallavas, who succeeded the Andhras in the south, were

- o
of Brahmin origin and belonged to the Bharadvaj a Gotra.
_ _ « , 4
The Kadarabas of Vanavasi, the Nalambas of Mysore and the
Matsyas of Uddavadi® were all ruling families of Brahmin

caste. In the 7th century A.D., Hiuen Tsang has recorded

6
the existence of several Brahmin Rajas as in Jijhoti and
- - 7
in Kamarupa. Coup de etat by the Brahmin ministers also
Q
continued as we find in the case of Chacha in Sind and
- 9
Kallara also known as Lalliya in Kabul. When a Brahmin

succeeded in founding a dynasty and then taking of the

task of a Kshatriya, his descendants were recognised as

Kshatriyas and they intermarried freely with the established

Kshatriya families.1®2 During
3 4 * 6the
7 8transitional
9 10 period, while

1. E.I. VIII pp.60-61 1.7 and L.S

2. Rayakota Copper- plates. E.I. Vol V. pp.52 ff.
A Prakrit Grant of the Pallava king Sivaskandavarman.
E.I. Vol* I pp.22 ff. Also -J.B.O.R.S. March-June 1933 pp.180-83
3. Talagunda^inscription of Kakusthavarman.
E.I. Vol. VIII pp.24-36.
4. Rice- Mysore and Coorg from Inscription, p.55,
6. Dibbida Plates of Arjuna. 1.1. Vol. V pp.106 ff.
6. Watters- L.C.ii p.251
Beal L.e. 271.
7. Widhanpur Copper-plates. E.I. Vol.XII pp.65 ff.
8. ROY^BHNI Vol. I p.4.
9. Ibid p.63 also Alberuni- India.Eng, Trans, by
Saehau Vol.II p.13.
10. Ind. Ant. 1910 Vol. XXXIX p.117.

\
*
 IS

a Brahmin family was passing into a Kshatriya clan, it was

often known by the composite designation of Brahma-Kshatri.-*-

A number of cases of the application of this term to royal

families are recorded, the most important being those of

the Sisodias of Mewar and the Senas of Bengal. The Sisodias or

Guhilots, who had a reputation as an ideal Kshatriya race,

actually were of Brahmin origin. The founder of their dynasty,

Bappa, is known as Vipra Kula Handana in the Atpur inscription
of Saktikuma^.and as Dvija Pungava in the "Rasika Priya" of
— — # 'S-
Rana Kumbhakarna, The Sisodia king Bhartribhatta is described
• * * •

as Brahma-Kshatri in Ghatsu inscription.1

4 2
5
Samantasena
3 of the

Sena KsMtriya family is also described as Brhma-Kshatri in

the Deopara Inscription? Many such instances of the Brahmin

families being converted into the Kshatriya clan can be given

from-history and it is not unlikely that the Chauhans are one

of them.

1. Similarly the Kshatriyas who became Brahmins were designated

Kshat rope taBvij at ayah.
PArgitar- Indian-historical-tradition, London 1922
pp. 199, 243-52.
2. Ind. Ant. Vol XXXlX pp.186 ff
3. Verse 5th
4. Ind. Ant*1916 p.17?
5. E.I. Vol. I pp.306 ff. •

%
 14

Prom the above discussions, it appears

quite reasonable that the Chauhans are an indigenous people
of India. Originally they were Brahmin by caste. But gradually
J A.
they gave up their priestly calling and entered the Kshatrlya

fold probably being induced by the prevailing condition, so

that by 10th century A.D., they has»e established themselves as

Kshatriyas and no sign of their Brahmin origin could be traced.

On account of the fact that they were not originally Kshatriyas,

traditions are not unanimous about the exact Kshatrlya family

to which they belonged originally.

%
%