No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ratna the Son of the Cāhamāṇa Hammīra and the Sack of Chitor
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Extract
Dr. Kalika Ranjan Qanungo's short work “Studies in Rajput History” consists of six lectures on the history of Rajasthan. The first is entitled “A Critical Analysis of the Padminī Legend”, and we disagree with Dr. Qanungo in many vital points, the most important of which is his theory on the main cause of the sack of Chitor by ‘Alā-ud-Dīn Khaljī. His error is linked up with his confusion about the various chiefs named Ratnasiṁha mentioned by different sources.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1964
References
page 95 note 1 R. P. Nopany Lecture Series, Calcutta University.
page 95 note 2 SRH., p. 12 ff.
page 95 note 3 E.I., vol. 24, p. 328, vs. 176–77.
page 95 note 4 Edited by V. S. Agravala, 1955; also R. Shukla, N.P.G. No. 31, 2nd. ed.
page 95 note 5 Chirava insc. EI, vol. 22, p. 290, v. 26; VOJ., vol. 21, p. 158.
page 95 note 6 Surajmal's, VideVariśabhāskana, 11Google Scholar, 1686 as cited in SRH., p. 13.
page 95 note 7 ARRMA., 1926–27, p. 3, no. 8.
page 95 note 8 JNSI., vol. 20 (1958), pt. 1, p. 36 and Plate 17 and 18Google Scholar. I am indebted to Dr. P. L. Gupta of the Patna Museum, Bihar (India): who in a personal communication, has kindly informed me of this reference.
page 96 note 1 See Qanungo's op. cit. p. 11, where it is written 137 years. This is apparently a printer's mistake.
page 96 note 2 EI, vol. 22, p. 290, vs. 22–26; also, VOJ., vol. 21, p. 158.
page 96 note 3 HR., vol. 1, p. 472 and 478.
page 96 note 4 First in the year 1907 in the VOJ., vol. 21, p. 155 ff. and then in the year 1938 in EI, vol. 22, p. 285 ff.
page 97 note 1 SRH., p. 12, no. 3
page 97 note 2 HR., vol. 1, p. 522.
page 97 note 3 EL, vol. 22, p. 290, v. 29.
page 97 note 4 Bh.I., p. 114; see also, HR., vol. 1, p. 522.
page 97 note 5 V. 29 of the Chirava inscription; see also, HR., vol. 1, pp. 472–73.
page 97 note 6 HR., vol. 11, p. 558 ff., n. 2.
page 97 note 7 SRH., p. 13, 15.
page 98 note 1 JIH., vol. 8 (1929), p. 363Google Scholar.
page 98 note 2 ARRMA., 1920–21, p. 4, no. 8.
page 98 note 3 SRH., p. 15, n. 1.
page 98 note 4 Hammīra-Rāso, ed. by Dās, Shyām Sundar, 2nd edition, N.P.S., Kaśi, 1929, p. 34Google Scholar.
page 98 note 5 Ibid., pp. 24–25, and p. 107, no. 533.
page 98 note 6 Ibid., p. 104, no. 517.
page 99 note 1 SRH., p. 10.
page 99 note 2 Second ed., op. cit., p. 188, no. 968.
page 99 note 3 For numerals see the Hindi Dictionary — Bhäṣā, Śabda Kośa, ed. by Śukla, R. S., Allahabad, 1937, pp. 622, 988, 1567, and 1044Google Scholar.
page 99 note 4 IHQ., vol. 7 (1931), p. 291, n.2Google Scholar.
page 99 note 5 Ibid.
page 99 note 6 JIH., vol. 8 (1929), p. 365, nGoogle Scholar. For text see Firishta, Nawal Kishore Press, Lucknow edition, 1864, vol. 1, p. 108.
page 99 note 7 SRH., p. 15, n. 1.
page 100 note 1 According to Dr. Qanungo it was written within forty years of the sack of Ranthambhor (SRH., p. 10). But Dr. Qanungo is here obviously wrong. We have no positive evidence to show that the Hammira-Mahākāvya was composed in a.d. 1336. Surprisingly, Dr. Qanungo does not refer to the authority on which his statement is based. The colophon of this work states that the present copy was made by Nayahaṁsa, the pupil of Jayasiṁha Sūri, for the purpose of reading in A.D. 1485 (V.S. 1542) (HM., p. 136). No date of the original composition of the work is given in the colophon. According to Dr. D. Sharma the work was composed nearly one hundred years after the death of Hammira (ECD., p. 338). But no scholar has ever determined the exact date of this work except Dr. Qanungo, who distinctly says that it was composed in A.D. 1336, without mentioning his source.
page 100 note 2 HM., canto, 13, v. 191, p. 126.
page 100 note 3 Ibid., p. 131, canto, 14, v. 16, p. 131.
page 100 note 4 HM., canto, 9, vs., 26–27.
page 101 note 1 ECD., p. 338.
page 101 note 2 Ed. by Rāmkarṇa Asopa in Marwari, vol. 1, pp. 25–26. Naiṇsī here apparently implies that Ratnasiṁha was the son of Ajayasiṁha, though he does not clearly say so. But the words Ratansī Ajaisī ro, whose literal meaning would be ‘Ratnasī of Ajaisi’, can only mean here Ratnasī son of Ajaisī. If Naiṇsi had any other intention, he would surely have clearly mentioned it, as he did in the case of Lakṣmaṇasimha, who is distinctly stated to be the brother of Ratnasiṁha.
page 101 note 3 Trans, vol. 1, p. 21.
page 102 note 1 Ed. by R. K. Asopa, vol. 1, p. 23, nos. 23–24.
page 102 note 2 SRH., p. 14, n.
page 102 note 3 HR., vol. 1, Appendix 2, p. 519 ff.; see also ibid., genealogical table, Appendix 3, p. 522.
page 102 note 4 Bh. I., p. 114.
page 102 note 5 Trans, vol. 1, pp. 21–22.
page 102 note 6 SRH., p. 13 ff.
page 102 note 7 Ed. by Asopa, vol. 1, pp. 25–26.
page 103 note 1 Trans, vol. 1, p. 21.